9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have used the funds either for construction or for purchase of the house. Tribunal rightly held that assessee was not able to discharge the onus cast upon it. No substantial question of law arises - Appeal dismissed. - Tax Appeal Nos. 1728 and 1729 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Ms. Sonia Gokani, JJ. R.K. Patel for the Appellant. ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Tribunal dated 26.2.2010. Facts are more or less similar in both the appeals and therefore, facts as stated in Tax Appeal No.1728 of 2010 are taken for deciding these appeals. 2. At the outset, counsel for the assessee did not press question Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the surviving quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al observing that though the assessee is a firm registered for the purpose of providing long term finance for construction and purchase of houses for residential purpose, the assessee had not bothered to see if the money disbursed was being actually used for construction and purchase of residential house or not. The company simply took application in which it was mentioned that loan is required for purchase of residential unit and without any further verification issued cheque to the borrower. No system was established to check or verify whether the finance provided by it was actually used for the purpose of construction or purchase of house and no details were called for from the borrower regarding allotment of house or material to show th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged the onus that loans given by it were indeed used for purchasing and construction of any residential house, the AO denied the claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act in these two assessment years. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not establish that the money disbursed by it was used for the purpose of construction or purchase of residential houses. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee having failed to establish that it has provided the loans/finances for the purposes envisaged in Section 36(1)(viii), deduction was not admissible. The copies of application for advances by various borrowers placed in paper book on page 41 to 90 submitted before us and referred to by the ld. AR are in Gujarati. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, from the record we notice that the authorities below have examined all the relevant aspects of the matter. It is not disputable that the assessee did not submit full details of the borrowers and their construction or acquisition of houses from the borrowed funds. It is not a case where large number of notices were issued and only three out of such noticees came forward suggesting that the fund was not utilized for such purpose. It was a case wherein on three random notices being issued, all the three borrowers declined to have used the funds either for construction or for purchase of the house. The Tribunal rightly observed that onus was on the part of the assessee to establish that the conditions of claim for deduction were satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
