9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are being heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. Even though in both the appeals, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, we have taken the appeals for adjudication since the appeals are preferred out of RAP objection. 2. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are delayed by 6 days, for which, the Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 6 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the sides through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer estimated the interest at 24% on the outstanding sundry debtors. Actually, in view of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments were added as undisclosed income and since the assessee has not redeemed those investments, the Assessing Officer considered the interest on those investments as accrued income. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee has not receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years stands dismissed. 7. The next ground raised in the assessment year 2009-10 relates to deletion of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. The assessee has admitted dividend income of Rs. 31,498/-. However, since the assessee has not shown any expenses to earn the dividend income, by applying the provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer determined the expenditure to earn the dividend income at Rs. 1,52,451/- and brought to tax. 7.1 On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Renu Sarin, wife of the Kartha of the assessee HUF in I.T.A. nos. 226, 227, 228/Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any merit in the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities because from the facts of the case there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income because no such expenditure appears to be debited to the P&L account of the assessee. The assessee is an individual and it appears that she has made the investment based on her own decision without any external or internal aid and from her own interest free funds. In such situation no expenditure could be attributed for making such investment. Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee have claimed any expenditure as deduction. When the assessee has not claimed any expenditure there could not have be any expenditure tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
