TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was having non-interest bearing funds - This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. We find no infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(Appeals), which is hereby affirmed. Ground of appeal is rejected. Addition on account of personal use of car and 10% disallowance of depreciation on car - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the disallowance was made purely on ad hoc basis without pointing out as to what expenditure was not supported with evidence. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue, the same is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Addition of unproved alleged unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) has categorically stated that the advances were made out of the maturity of the FDRs of the concerned persons and the evidences are duly enclosed in the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on the issue in question. Moreover, the AO has not brought any contrary material to rebut the finding of learned CIT(Appeals). Thus, ground of Revenue lacks on merit, same is rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving rise to the present appeal are that in this return of income was filed on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 13,02,090/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act , was framed vide order dated 27.03.2014. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made disallowance in respect bad debt written off amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/-; disallowance of advance received amounting to Rs. 1,34,00,000/-; disallowance of earth filling expenses amounting to Rs. 12,72,400/-; addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,06,41,000/-; disallowance out of vehicle running expenses amounting to Rs. 45,469/-; disallowance out of depreciation on car expenses amounting to Rs. 66,246/-; and disallowance of proportionate interest amounting to Rs. 3,21,967/-. Thus he assessed income at Rs. 3,20,49,170/- against the returned income of Rs. 13,02,090/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal. Thereby the learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,34,00,000/-; restricte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has wrongly applied the case laws as the Assessing Officer has categorically given a finding that the assessee has not charged any interest on the advances given to the various persons. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) in deleting the disallowance in question. He submitted that the assessee was having sufficient interest free funds available with him. The AO was therefore, not justified for making disallowance of proportionate interest. 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given a finding of fact that the advances were given out of interest free funds. Learned CIT(Appeals) in the impugned order has stated t4hat the assessee was having non-interest bearing funds amounting to Rs. 4,84,34,694.81. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. We find no infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(Appeals), which is hereby affirmed. Ground of appeal is rejected. 12. Ground no. 3 is against deleting the addition of Rs. 45,469/- and Rs. 66,246/- made on account of personal use of car and 10% di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Manoj Kalra in these statements all the creditors filed copies FDRs and confirmed that they have given the s. In the statements all these loan creditors have stated that in the current the FDRs got matured and were given as loan. A perusal of the Remand report shows that the A.O has not realized that the loan creditors were clearly stating that the loan has been given on the maturity of FDRs. Instead in the statements recoded in remand the AO has focused on the source of the funds which has been already explained that these FDRs were not purchased in the current year. Thus, the question of applying section 68 of the FT Act would not lie even as the FDRs were not purchased by the loan creditors in this year and the source of funds would not be relevant to this financial year. These facts have not been correctly appreciated by the AO even in Remand when he has recorded the statements of the loan creditors. The purchased FDRs which pertain to Fyr 2007-08 got matured this year, this fact could have been verified from the copies of FDRs submitted which give the details of purchase and maturity date thereafter the Bank credited the maturity' proceeds in the OD account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
