9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross-objections in this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s Arora Aromatics. He is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of Menthol Crystal, Menthol and Essential Oils Crystals, DMO, Peppermint Oil, etc. For the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.8.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 3,20,89,580/-. During the assessment proceedings learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 9,80,05,543/- from his brother Mr. Suresh Chand Arora. In response to a query raised by the learned Assessing Officer the assessee submitted that he made the purchases form Ruchi Infotech Systems in the preceding years and at the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus cenvat invoices issued by M/s Ruchi Infotech Systems; that against the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, assessee went before CESTAT and filed an appeal on 25.06.2010 and CESTAT has granted the interim stay to the assessee and no further order has been passed. Learned Assessing Officer further observed the assessee has converted the trading credit liability in the name of M/s Ruchi Infotech Systems into the loan liability and therefore liability has ceased to exist, and accordingly made the addition of an amount of Rs. 6,44,29,650/-, under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 4. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l excise, Meerut, 2017 (12) TMI 1430-CESTAT, Allahabad) by order dated 1/11/2017 and also in the case of M/s Ruchi Infotech Systems by order dated 21/2/2019, the copies of which are produced before us in the paperbook vide page numbers 406 to 411. The other argument is that, since the amount payable is not written back, and as the amount was still shown as outstanding at the end of the relevant year, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not attracted, as is held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Vardhman Overseas [2012] 343 ITR 408 (Del.). 6. On a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of M/s Arora aromatics (supra) and also M/s Ruchi Infotech (supra), we find that in those decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 41 (1) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. This view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Vardhaman Overseas (supra).In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly applied the law to the facts of the case and reached an unassailable conclusion. We accordingly hold that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) do not suffer any illegality or irregularity and they cannot be disturbed. Consequently grounds of appeal of Revenue are found devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. In view of our findings in the appeal of the Revenue, the cross objections become infructuous and are also liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
