9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (A) while deleting the addition has noted that the conclusion of the A.O. of diversion of funds by the assessee is not supported by facts and has further given a finding that during the year no withdrawals have been made by the partners and neither any loans were taken by the assessee and no effective interest deduction has been claimed by the assessee. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of the CIT (A). In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 2411/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2015 - Anil Chaturvedi, AM And S. S. Godara, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri V K Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs the A.O. noticed that under the heading of loans and advances the assessee was showing ₹ 15,04,001/- against Aswamegh Medows Booking. The assessee was asked to give the details of the same and also to explain as to how the balances were outstanding from a scheme that was cancelled long back. In response to which the assessee filed the names of the persons but did not furnish the address of the parties, confirmations etc. The A.O. noted that it was 15 years since the money was payable and since the parties were not insisting for payment and the assessee also had not made any payment, the liability has ceased to exist and therefore he considered ₹ 15,04,001/- as income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15,04,001 made u/s. 41(1) because the issue is covered by Hon'ble ITAT Bench B Ahmedabad decision in the case of Govindbhai C. Patel mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- is upheld as it was confirmed during the appellate proceedings by the Ld. AR that deduction of this amount on account of purchase of escalators had been taken in earlier years and the appellant was disputing the payment to Bharat Bijlee but no proofs could be submitted even during the appellate proceedings. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT (A) the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us the Ld. D.R. supported the order of the A.O. On the other hand, the ld.AR reiterated the submissions made befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on some of the loans taken by it. He was of the view that had the funds been deposited with bank the assessee could have earned interest at 12% and by advancing amount to the parners there was loss to assessee. He thereafter, worked out the interest on the monthly balances of the partners, being the interest that could have earned by the assessee, and added ₹ 82,42,294/- to the income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT (A) who vide his order dated 1-2-2010 deleted the addition by holding as under:- 11. After going through rival submissions I find that the conclusion drawn by the A.O. is not supported by facts The AO has not given any account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
