TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of bank statement has also been filed to prove that the alleged fund was not received during the assessment year under consideration. This fact remains undisputed at the end of the ld. DR also. We, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that since the alleged sum of ₹ 4 lakhs was not received during the A.Y under consideration, the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act is not called for during the A.Y under consideration - Thus we delete the addition u/s. 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 69C of interest expenditure on the alleged unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Since the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act for alleged cash credit stands deleted by us and there bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be declared void . 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not considering clear language in S.14A in two phrases namely total income under this Chapter and which does not form part of the total income under this Act as used in S.14A. AS per reading of these phrases a disallowance is called for only in relation to income which is not chargeable under the Act. Therefore, Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in confirming invocation of S.14A, because dividend constitute chargeable income I total income under the Act and is a final tax levied under the Act. Therefore, in relation to such income S.14A cannot be invoked. The Ld. AO may be directed not to invoke S.14A. 4. For that without prejudice to above ground, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. For that Ld. CITA (A) was wrong in holding that invocation and levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C are consequential in nature. Furthermore when AO did not make any order to levy interest us. 234A, 234B and 234C but in computerized computation sheet interest has been levied. In case of additions made due to difference of opinion, and also additions made not as per law and binding precedence, interest can only be charged on the basis of income as per return and not as per income assessed by AO. Because it is impossible for assesse to foresee, what additions will be made by the AO. Levy of interest may be deleted fully. 10. The appellant seeks permission to raise new contentions and new grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to challenge the finding of the ld. CIT(A). As regards the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act of ₹ 4 lakhs, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no such amount was received during the year. The alleged sum was received in the preceding F.Y (financial year) and, therefore, no addition on this issue was called for. As regards the disallowance made on interest expenditure of ₹ 40,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by him that it is a genuine expenditure and the same may be allowed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also took us through the paper book dt. 14-10-2020 running pages from 1 to 36 and another paper book dt. 23-11-20 running pages from 1 to 63. 7. Per contra, Ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed at page 33 of the P.B dt. 23-11-20 for the F.Y 2013- 14 relevant to A.Y 2014-15 shows that there was an opening credit balance of ₹ 7 lakhs as on 1-4-2013. The assessee took a loan of ₹ 4 lakhs on 1-1-2014. Interest was paid and TDS was deducted and the closing balance was at ₹ 11,00,000/-. Further, during the year under appeal i.e F.Y 2014-15 from perusal of paper book at page-34, we find that in confirmation of accounts there is no transaction during the year and interest has been charged on the opening balance. Other documentary evidence in the form of bank statement has also been filed to prove that the alleged fund was not received during the assessment year under consideration. This fact remains undisputed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
