9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing ground No. 1, 2 & 3, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No. 4 relates to the addition on account of suspense account amounting to Rs. 2,32,052/-. 4.1. This issue has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) at Para-6 of his order. The additions have been made in respect of deposits which according to the AO were not reconciled. 4.2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in one of the group cases viz., Hitesh S. Mehta in ITA No. 1671/M/2012. 4.3. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). We find that a similar issue was considered at para-33 as under: "Ground No. 4 relates to the addition on account of deposits in the bank account treated as suspense entries amounting to Rs. 50,641/-. We find that identical issues were before the Tribunal in ITA No 5587/M/11. The Tribunal has considered identical issues at para-6 of its order and at para 6.3 the Tribunal held as under: "After considering the rival submissions and considering the material on record, we found that this issue needs readjudication at the end of the learned CIT(A). Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the findings given in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Eminent Holdings in ITA Nos. 2139, 2140 and 2141/Mum/2013 have followed the decision of the Tribunal given in common group case of Hitesh S. Mehta at para 2.3 of the order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Before closing this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the issue of interest expenditure is pending before the Hon'ble Special Court. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the proceedings in which the said issue of interest was issued by the custodian have been already concluded which fact has already been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this fact while deciding the issue afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) may also direct for the taxing of income in the hands of the recipient (fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 234C of the Act. 10.1. Before us, the Ld. DR brought to our notice that this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee to which the Counsel fairly conceded . 10.2. This issue has also come up before the Tribunal in one of the group cases viz., M/s. Harsh Estates Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1035, 1033 & 3464/M/2013. We find that the Tribunal has considered this issue at para-6 of its order wherein it has held as under: "So far as, charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is concerned the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that it may be sent to the file of the ld. Assessing officer. However, the ld. Special counsel contended that the levy of interest is mandatory therefore it should be 5 M/s Harsh Estates Pvt. Ltd. decided against the assessee. However the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that it may be sent to the Assessing Officer for actual calculation purposes only. Agreed, levy of interest is mandatory and sometimes consequential depending upon the facts of each case. We note that identical issue arose before the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases therefore following the reasoning contained therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re it is dismissed as not pressed. 22.1. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of interest expenditure. 22.2. This ground is identical to ground No. 5 of ITA No. 6198/M/2011 for A.Y. 2003-04 in assessee's appeal. Following the same reasoning mentioned hereinabove at para 5 & 5.1, ground of appeal taken for A.Y. 2009-10 is also allowed for statistical purpose. 23. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition on account of personal household expenses of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 24. This issue has been considered by the AO at para-7 of his order wherein he has observed that the assessee has not shown proper withdrawals for household expenses. According to the AO, the assessee must be spending Rs. 25,000/- per month which is not reflected in the books. The AO therefore added Rs. 3,00,000/- to the total taxable income u/s. 69C of the Act. 25. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 26. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a chart showing details of personal withdrawals which read as under: Sr. No. Name Addition on account of low withdrawals by AO Addition on account of low withdrawals Confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Personal withdrawals disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
