TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore we hold that there is no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) deleting the addition towards interest. This ground of the revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 69B - advances outstanding include the interest accrued net of TDS - difference between advances outstanding as of 31/03/2018 and loan balance as on the said date - HELD THAT:- As also clear that the amount of outstanding advances includes the interest accrued on the advance net of TDS. In the order of assessment, we notice that the Assessing Officer has not considered any of the submissions but has simply calculated the difference between advances outstanding as of 31/03/2018 and loan balance as on the said date to make an addition under section 69B. We are unable to appreciate the action of the AO for the reason that assessee has clearly explained and provided a proper reconciliation for the amounts shown in the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2018 and the addition has been made without giving finding contrary on record. Accordingly, addition made u/s 69B by AO is not tenable. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 105.92 crores from DHFL and pending its deployment in business, the same was advanced @12% to NBFC and the developers which earned a total interest of Rs. 4,52,62,157/-. The assessee further submitted that the tax on the interest received was deducted by the parties which amounted to Rs. 44,95,475/-. The assessee also submitted that the assessee paid interest to DHFL @10% which resulted in net interest income of Rs. 14,38,017/- only and, therefore, the major portion of the tax deducted at source is claimed in the return as refund. The Assessing Officer worked out interest income of the assessee by applying the rate of interest @12% for the whole year that came to Rs. 12,08,84,000/- and held that the assessee has suppressed interest income to the tune of Rs. 7,56,21,843/- i.e. Rs. 12,08,84,000/- (-) Rs. 4,52,62,167/-. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the loan from DHFL was received on multiple dates from October 2017 till the end of the year and that the advances were also accordingly given in tranches to various parties. The assessee submitted the copy of ledger account, bank account, and confirmation from the parties before the Assessing Officer pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to when the advances were given to the parties is also not substantiated justifying the interest income. The Ld.DR supported the order of the AO by stating that the AO has correctly made the addition by applying interest @12% for the whole year for want of details from the assessee. With regard to the addition made under section 69B, the Ld.DR submitted that assessee could not properly reconcile the difference between the balance in advance account as on 31/03/2018 and the amount of loan taken from DHFL and, therefore, the Assessing Officer is correct in adding the difference as undisclosed investments. 5. The Ld.AR, on the other hand drew our attention to the various details submitted by the assessee with regard to the loan taken from DHFL and also the advances given to various parties, which the Assessing Officer has reproduced in the assessment order. The Ld.AR further submitted that from the bank statements submitted before the Assessing Officer, it will be clear that the loan from DHFL was taken only from October, 2017 and, therefore, charging of interest for the whole year on the advances given out of the said loan is not correct. With regard to the addition under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended only after the said date. The Assessing Officer has in the order of assessment has reproduced the submissions of the assessee and the fact that the assessee has submitted the loan statement from DHFL, the ledger copies of the loans advanced and the copies of bank statement to substantiate the above submissions. The Assessing Officer has also reproduced the ledger copies and other details submitted by the assessee in the order of assessment. From the ledger accounts reproduced in the assessment order, it is very clear that the assessee has lent the loan after October, 2017 on various dates and that interest is calculated considering the number of days for which the loan was advanced. Given this, we are unable to understand or appreciate why despite reproducing all the details the Assessing Officer proceeded to calculate interest for the whole assessment year. Since it is evident from the details submitted by the lower authorities that the assessee has obtained the loan from DHFL only in October 2017 and has advanced the same to various parties out of the said loan, we see no logic in Assessing Officer calculating interest for the whole year. Therefore we hold that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties as above. The assessee has also explained to the Assessing Officer that the advances outstanding include the interest accrued net of TDS. From the perusal of the above table and the other submissions as reproduced in the assessment order it is clear that the assessee has extended a loan of Rs. 106.61 crores out of the loan amount of Rs. 108.04 crores. It is also clear that the amount of outstanding advances includes the interest accrued on the advance net of TDS. In the order of assessment, we notice that the Assessing Officer has not considered any of the submissions but has simply calculated the difference between advances outstanding as of 31/03/2018 and loan balance as on the said date to make an addition under section 69B. We are unable to appreciate the action of the Assessing Officer for the reason that assessee has clearly explained and provided a proper reconciliation for the amounts shown in the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2018 and the addition has been made without giving finding contrary on record. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the addition made under section 69B by the Assessing Officer is not tenable. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
