9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 552 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained loan transaction - no evidences to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transactions were furnished by the assessee - HELD THAT - No evidences whatsoever have been filed to controvert the same by the assessee before us. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had elaborately discussed the issue in dispute and had observed that assessee had not proved the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions in respect of loans received from M/s. Nakshatra Business Private Limited and Hema Trading Company. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of ROC charges - Addition on the basis with the same is related to increase in authorised share capital and hence, it is capital expenditure - disallowance has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that fees paid to ROC for increase in authorised share capital is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Non-compliance and continuous non-cooperation of the assessee leading to the disposal of the appeal. 2. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions. 3. Disallowance of ROC charges as capital expenditure. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. 5. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue 1: Non-Compliance and Continuous Non-Cooperation: The appeal was disposed of due to the continuous non-cooperation from the side of the assessee. Despite multiple notices and adjournments, no appearance was made on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal decided to hear the ld. DR and reviewed the available materials on record before making a decision. Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit: The assessee, engaged in the business of mobile phones and accessories, failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions. The loans from certain creditors were treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting the lack of effort by the assessee to provide material evidence to support the transactions. Issue 3: Disallowance of ROC Charges: The disallowance of ROC charges as capital expenditure was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) based on the increase in authorized share capital. Citing the decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT, it was established that fees paid to ROC for increasing authorized share capital constitute capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Issue 4: Levy of Interest: The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was deemed consequential and did not require specific adjudication in the judgment. Issue 5: Initiation of Penalty: The initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was considered premature for adjudication at the current stage and was not addressed in the judgment. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 30/09/2021. The judgment comprehensively addressed the issues raised by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary evidence and complying with legal procedures in tax matters.
|
