TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion being claim of expenses incurred outside India - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that no such claim was made in the return of income. There is also no dispute that all the claims of expense has already been allowed by the Assessing Officer u/s 44C of the Act. It is equally true that neither the Assessing Officer nor the first appellate authority have examined the claim in the light of certificates in this respect. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to demonstrate its claim of expenditure with supporting evidences and the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh as per provisions of law after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA No. 766/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2019 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv, Shri R.R. Marge, CA For the Revenue : Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 99,77,50,000 8. 13.04.1992 212830 ₹ 53,55,00,000 9. 20.04.1992 212864 ₹ 100,09,52,054 TOTAL Rs^506,54,54,878 4. All the cheques were encashed by the assessee and proceeds were credited to the account of Shri Harshad Mehta. 5. In May 1992, when Securities Scam came to light, a dispute arose between the appellant and the NHB with respect to the aforementioned cheques aggregating to ₹ 506.54 crores. NHB claimed a refund for the amount of cheques. However, the claim was denied by the appellant. The appellant stated that the cheques were for the benefit of Shri Harshad Mehta and, therefore, the bank is not liable to repay the amount. 6. Pursuant to the directive issued by the RBI, the appellant made a deposit of ₹ 506.54 crores with NHB with the condition that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its name from NHB amounting to ₹ 506.54 crores and when the assessee received these cheques, it had no transactions with NHB, yet it encashed all the cheques and proceeds were credited in the account of Shri Harshad Mehta. Pursuant to the directions of the assessee RBI, the assessee repaid the amount of ₹ 506.54 crores to NHB. Therefore, there is no question of its being allowed as deduction, as loss, as claimed by the assessee. ii) The Assessing Officer also dismissed the claim of loss of stock in trade stating that the amount received by NHB was not stock in trade of the assessee as there were no business transactions between the assessee and NHB. iii) The Assessing Officer also denied the claim when there was no finding of any illegality attached to any action of the bank at any point of time before any proceedings before any forum. The Assessing Officer further observed that the bank has credited the entire proceeds of ₹ 506.54 cores in the account of Shri Harshad Mehta being advance given without taking any bank guarantee/security and the assessee has tried to justify its action in the garb of marketing practice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... analysing the facts mentioned elsewhere, we failed to persuade ourselves to find the answer to : (a) why NHB gave nine account payee cheques to the appellant bank amounting to ₹ 506.54 crores when it had no business dealings with the appellant bank? and (b) when cheques were account payee cheques only, why the proceeds were credited in the account of Shri Harshad Mehta. 21. Facts clearly show that the transactions were peculiar and were not transacted in the ordinary course of business. The bare fact is that for some reasons best know to NHB and the appellant bank, the assessee received ₹ 506.54 crores from NHB and for obvious reasons, it had to repay the said amount to NHB. For some reason best known to the appellant bank, proceeds were credited in the account of Shri Harshad Mehta and subsequently, the entire transaction was burnt in the fire of Security Scam. 22. We once again failed to persuade ourselves to consider the entire transaction done in the ordinary course of business. In our considered opinion, the repayment of ₹ 506.54 cores even if it enured loss to the appellant bank, by any stre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
