TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilarly, the nexus between loan obtained from LIC and loans which earned interest income could not be demonstrated. This being the case, we have no hesitation in confirming the stand of lower authorities. The cross-objection of assessee stands dismissed. For penalty we find that the assessee made a claim which has not been accepted by lower authorities for want of conclusive evidence of proving the nexus between funds borrowed by the assessee and funds advanced by the assessee. However, the same, in our opinion, did not lead to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, by deleting the same, we allow the assessee’s appeal. - I.T.A. No. 2191/Mum/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,04,069/- 3. Addition on account of deemed dividend 37,50,000/- The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration, has deleted the additions listed at Serial Numbers 1 3, against which the revenue is in further appeal before us vide ITA No. 2304/Mum/2013 whereas the assessee by way of cross-objection CO No.117/Mum/2014 has contested the interest addition as sustained by Ld. CIT(A). 3. At the outset, it has been noticed that the tax effect of the quantum additions as contested by the revenue is less than threshold limit of ₹ 20 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case the tax effect of the quantum additions as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit. 6.1 Facts qua interest additions are that during impugned AY, the assessee earned interest income of ₹ 1.32 Lacs from certain loans savings bank account and reflected the same as Income from other sources. Against the same, it claimed interest paid to Banks, LIC and Bank Charges aggregating to ₹ 6.04 Lacs and accordingly, computed negative figure of ₹ 4.71 Lacs as income from other sources. The Ld. AO, after perusal of Balance Sheet, came to conclusion that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between loans raised and interest paid and therefore, by disallowing interest expenditure, made an addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing agitated before us in ITA No.2191/Mum/2016. 7.2 Upon due consideration of factual matrix, we find that the assessee made a claim which has not been accepted by lower authorities for want of conclusive evidence of proving the nexus between funds borrowed by the assessee and funds advanced by the assessee. However, the same, in our opinion, did not lead to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, by deleting the same, we allow the assessee s appeal. 8. Resultantly, Revenue s Appeal ITA No. 2304/Mum/2013 as well as assessee s cross-objection CO. No. 117/Mum/2014 stands dismissed whereas assessee s appeal ITA No. 2191/Mum/2016 stands all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
