9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals), Meerut dated 8-10-2004 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) for assessment year 2001-02. 2. In this appeal, the revenue has disputed deduction of Rs. 2,09,066 allowed to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) under the provisions of section 36(1)( iii ) of the Act. There is a typographical error in the grounds of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. The entire turn over of the assessee during 2001-02 amounted to Rs. 57,33,562. There was no closing stock left at the end of the year that showed the involvement of very little circulating capital in the trading activity of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the alleged cash borrowings had not been utilized by the assessee for the purpose of its business. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. The assessee had not produced any evidence at any stage that the cash borrowings in question had ever been utilized in the business of the assessee. As against it, the turn over and other aspects of trading disclosed by the assessee clearly showed that the assessee did not require liquid funds of this magnitude. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee argued that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The ld. CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee s submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
