9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 2012-13. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant neither made any personal attendance nor made any submissions in support of the grounds taken in the impugned appeal. This view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that when the appeal was fixed for hearing, the appellant's Counsel appeared before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and requested for time. Admittedly, the request for adjournment was not rejected. Hence the presumption to the contrary and confirmation of the order of the Assessing Officer is not justified. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed upon perusal of the show cause notice. Further, the assessment was completed in a biased manner without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the appellant took loan of Rs. 97,14,221/- during the financial year 2011-12 and invested in unquoted shares of M/s. Jhaver Associates Private Limited and claimed interest expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account. This view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts. 11. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to note that the amount borrowed by the appellant was invested in the day-to-day activities of the business and was never invested in shares as presumed. Hence the conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary and untenable. 15. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that a perusal of the funds flow statement would reveal beyond doubt that there was corresponding/adequate credit in the bank account, which can be correlated to the share application money/premium received. Hence the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 5,08,352/- is liable to be deleted. 16. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the appellant debited the interest amount in profit and loss account out of borrowing used for the purpose of investment in shares. This view of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is based on conjectures and without any valid materials. Consequently, the confirmation of the invoking of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard learned DR and perused materials available on record along with orders of the authorities below. The only addition made by the Assessing Officer is disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by invoking Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has not disallowed direct expenses relatable to exempt income, however, quantified interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other expenses @ 0.5% of average value of investments under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules, 1962, and determined total disallowance of Rs. 5,08,352/-. Although, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
