9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40,100/-, there is no question of making any disallowance. In respect of the remaining portion, the CIT(Appeals) found that the interest has to be charged only at 11.5% when the assessee is paying interest at 11.5% on the borrowed funds. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the interest has to be considered only at 11.5% and not at 16%. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly restricted at ₹ 62,315/-. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the is confirmed. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- Assessing Officer added ₹ 50,000/- which was claimed to have been received from M/s Khanna Brothers and M/s Khanna & Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of M/s Spectrum Maruthi Spares. If that is true, the assessee is entitled for ₹ 14,00,185/-. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1147/Mds/2012,C.O. No.118/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan and Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT For the Respondent : Sh.V. Jagadisan, FCA ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Chennai, dated 15.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent of ₹ 15,27,009/- for the assessment year 2007-08. The opening balance as on 1.04.2006 is ₹ 11,40,100/-. Therefore, the interest-free fund available for making advance is to the extent of ₹ 11,40,100/-. This amount of ₹ 11,40,100/- was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) as advanced from capital balance. The CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance only in respect of the funds diverted for non-business purposes from the borrowed funds. The assessee admittedly paid @ 11.5% as interest, therefore, what could be disallowed is only interest portion @ 11.5% on the borrowed funds diverted. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly restricted the disallowance to ₹ 62,315/- instead of ₹ 7,56,800/-. 4. We have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormed the Assessing Officer that they gave funds only to M/s Spectrum Maruthi Spares and not to the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unaccounted cash credit in the hands of the assessee. Similarly, a sum of ₹ 6,90,000/- out of which ₹ 4,40,000/- was claimed to have been received during the year under consideration. The assessee explained that ₹ 2,40,000/- was credited in the books on account of transfer of funds from the assessee s own bank account at Union Bank of India. For the balance ₹ 2,00,000/-, the assessee explained that the amount was received from one Smt. T. Ramalakshmi by account payee demand draft. On the examination, the Assessing Officer found that the explanation of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raft. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition. According to the Ld. representative, there is no question of doubting the genuineness of the transaction. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 50,000/- which was claimed to have been received from M/s Khanna Brothers and M/s Khanna Co. The assessee claims that the advances were made to him. However, the cheque was issued in the name of M/s Spectrum Maruthi Spares. The fact remains that there was a transfer of funds from M/s Khanna Brothers and M/s Khanna Co. to M/s Spectrum Maruthi Spares where the assessee is a partner. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,56,817/-, a sum of ₹ 1,94,202/- was found during the course of survey and ₹ 6,70,914/- was already allowed to be telescoped by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the availability of balance was ₹ 4,91,701/- . The assessee being a partners of 50% share, according to the Ld. D.R., at the best, a sum of ₹ 2,40,851/- may be available for investment in the hotel renovation. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition. 11. On the contrary, Shri V. Jagadisan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the additional income offered by the partnership firm was ₹ 13,56,817/-. The income telescoped was ₹ 4,46,781/-. Referring to the order of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.959/Mds/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
