9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 29-10-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 47,44,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s.143 (3) of the Act vide order dated 24-12-2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,45,90,590/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., assessee carried the matter before CIT (A) who vide order dated 18-5-2010 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT (A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal. "(1) The Ld. CIT (A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,04,001/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 41(1) as cessation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant enclosure showing the names and addresses is enclosed as Annexure-1 of this order. It was argued by the AR that Rs. 15,04,001 was not claimed as deduction or expense in the return of any earlier year and for making addition u/s. 41(1) that was mandatory. Hon'ble ITAT Bench B Ahmedabad decision dated 30-10-2009 in the case of Govindbai C. Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No.1675/Ahd/2009 was cited in support wherein it has been held that where the assessee has incurred a trading liability and this liability has been allowed as a deduction in earlier year and something has later on been recovered in respect of such liability or such liability has either been remitted or has ceased to exist then section 41(1) comes into operation. Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1) of the Act. We find that the CIT (A) while deleting the addition has noted that the issue in the present case was covered by the decision of Ahmedabad Bench Tribunal in the case of Shri Govindbhai C. Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No.1675/Ahd./2009 for Assessment Year 2005-06 order dated 30-10-2009. Before us the Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor could point out any fallacy in the order of CIT (A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A). Thus this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Ground No.2 is with respect to the addition on account of interest. 10. Assessing Officer on perusing the balance sheet noticed that the unsecured loan received by the assessee was diverted for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no withdrawals had been made by the partners and neither any loans were taken by the appellant firm. No effective interest deduction has been taken by the appellant firm as interest debited of Rs. 15,38,484/- in the P & L account has been credited in the P & L account and has been debited to the three partners' account in their profit sharing ratio which is available in para 4.3 of the assessment order itself. The A.O. is therefore, directed to delete the addition of Rs. 82,42,294/-." 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT (A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 13. Before us, the Ld. DR supported the order of the A.O. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. and the CIT (A) and support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
