9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue under consideration was still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. National Travel Services vs CIT (89 taxmann.com 332 (SC)) and before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech vs. DCIT against the Tribunal order vide ITA Nos. 2365/Chny/2016 and 2805/Chny/2016 dated 05.12.2018. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that the order of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech vs DCIT in cross appeals vide ITA No. 2365/Chny/2016 and ITA No. 2805/Chny/2016 dated 05.12.2018 confirming the addition in the hands of the M/s. Subhavarsha Infot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otech. The firm accepted the ITAT's order partly to the extent of confirmation of the addition of Rs. 4.54 Crores, but appealed against the ITAT's decision in respect of the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 3 Crores given to the third party. The firm's appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 2.1. While the above addition was contested in appeal in the ITAT, the AO reopened and assessed one-third of Rs. 7.54 Crores in the hands of the above three partners on protective basis. Out of which, the appeals in respect of two partners namely, Mr. S. Sundaramoorthy and Mr. T. Padmakumar are dealt with in this order. The AO has made the aforesaid protective assessment in the hands of the above two partners relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Infotech before the Hon'ble High Court against the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai as mentioned above in which only the confirmation of addition of Rs. 3 Crores given to third party has been contested in appeal. After considering the AR's submission, I am convinced that, since the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai has already confirmed the addition of Rs. 4.54 crores in the hands of the firm - M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech and the same has been accepted by firm, further addition of the same amount in the hands of the two partners clearly amounts to double addition. Besides, since the issue under consideration has not reached finality in the apex court, I am of the considered opinion that as of now, in view of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent accounts in the books of the assessee, one for trading advances and other for non-trading loans/advances, and the sum of Rs. 7,54,00,000/- was not a trading advance. It is also not disputed that MIs. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd. had accumulated profits of Rs. 28,09,06,827/- as on 31.03.2012. Assessee had relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in. the case of Printwave Services P. Ltd. (supra). Lower authorities had taken a view that the said judgment applied only to Companies and not to partnership firms, who were the recipients of loans/advances. We are of the opinion that this view taken by the id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot be faulted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,00,000/- to the assessee. In these circumstances, we dismiss the grounds 6 to 10 of the assessee and allow the appeal of the Revenue." 4.1. On receipt of the above order, the firm, M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech has accepted the ITAT's decision to the extent of Rs. 4.54 Crores and therefore it reached finality. With regard to the addition of Rs. 3 Crores confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai, supra, in the hands of the firm, the firm has not accepted the ITAT's decision and has contested in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which is pending now. In such facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) 's decision "since the issue under consideration has not reached finality in the apex court, I am of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
