TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned creditors, and genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee with the 15 creditors, based on which the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order giving relief to the assessee. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A) calling for any interference and upholding the same, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No.2117/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2022 - Shri Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice President And Smt.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Accountant For the Assessee : Shri Anil N. Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR ORDER PER PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal is preferred by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case are that the assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of development and execution of construction projects. For the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed its e-return declaring total income at ₹ 11,37,88,864/-. The said return was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 17.9.2014. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) were served upon the assessee from time to time. In response thereto, the assessee furnished various details as called for. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings requested the assessee to furnish details of unsecured loans in tabular form to establish, genuineness of each transactions, identity and cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actions. Based on the AO s report, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,21,65,000/- out of total addition of ₹ 2,23,65,000/- made by the AO under section 68, and the balance amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- was confirmed. Similarly, out of total interest payment of ₹ 24,68,471/-, disallowance of ₹ 34,010/- representing part of interest payment made to one Bhavnaben N. Vyas was sustained and the balance interest disallowance was deleted. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, and aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld.DR submitted that CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the AO while entertaining addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 submitted by the AO, deleted major portion of the additions, and retained only ₹ 2,00,000/- paid to one Bhavnaben Vyas, and corresponding interest payment of ₹ 34,010/-. The ld.AR thus prayed that order of the ld.CIT(A) does not call for any interference, as there is no violation of Rule 46A as alleged by the ld.DR. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. The issue for our consideration is, whether the ld.CIT(A) has contravened Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 or not ? For adjudicating this core issue, it is relevant to reproduce observation of the CIT(A) s order, which read as under: Page No.18 From a perusal of the above Remand Report of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secured loans is established. Accordingly, in view of discussion above and relying on the Remand Report of the AO, it is held that the addition of ₹ 2,21,65,000/- was not justified. Accordingly, out of addition of ₹ 2,23,65,000/- addition of ₹ 2,21,65,000/- is deleted while addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- is upheld. Further, in view if discussion above, and in view of the fact that unsecured loans of ₹ 2,21,65,000/- have been held to be genuine, addition on account of disallowance of interest paid on the same is also deleted. Accordingly, out of interest disallowance of ₹ 24,68,471/-, disallowance of interest of ₹ 34,010/- paid to Bhavnaben N. Vyas is upheld while the balance addition is deleted. These gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules by the ld.CIT(A) while passing impugned order because an application was moved by the assessee vide letter dated 3.11.2017, requesting for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the same was forwarded to the AO, and the AO was given sufficient time to rebut the same. As a matter of fact, the AO in his detailed remand report had confirmed of having verified the additional evidence submitted by the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned creditors, and genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee with the 15 creditors, based on which the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order giving relief to the assessee. We therefore, do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
