9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvances shall be considered in the light of these facts. In view thereof, we are inclined to set aside the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the above observation in mind after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes - ITA No. 100/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) For The Revenue : Shri Rajesh Ojha (JCIT) ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M. These are cross appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue against the order dated 29/11/2012 by the learned CIT(A), Kota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from manufacturing of drugs and medicines, return declaring income of ₹ 44,43,370/- was filed on 14/11/2007. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce relevant details for ascertainment of its income consequently, they were rejected U/s 145(3). Consequently the assessment was framed U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by making trading addition of ₹ 12,77,322/-, and disallowing ₹ 8,23,987/- being corresponding interest on free loan and advances given by assessee. 4. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the trading addition, on which the revenue is in appeal and upheld the disallowance of interest qua the assessee is in appeal. 5. Apropos revenue s appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The ld CIT(A) without appreciating this issue or properly verifying the details accepted the version of assessee and deleted the trading addition. 7. The ld DR contends that the relief given to the assessee is highly unjustified as the assessee has deliberately scuttled the verification by the Assessing Officer and gave the explanation first time before the ld CIT(A), which does not justify such relief. The order of the ld CIT(A) should be reversed. 8. Ld counsel for the assessee on the other hand contends that the increase in excise duty is a matter of statutory record and merely because the assessee could not take a plea before the Assessing Officer does not disentitle him to take a legal plea before the ld CIT(A). 9. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon certain case laws mentioned at Page 5 and 6 of the assessment order and particular CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P H). Thus, finally, ld. AO disallowed interest to the extent of ₹ 8,32,987/-. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal where the party wise justification for interest free advance was given as under:- 1. M/s Chirag International Jaipur. The firm is looking after liasioning work of the appellant and for the said work, advance on account of the commission payable to him or for expenses then for the work was given. It is also submitted that the firm Chirag International is not in relation of the appellant. The interest calculated on his advance is ₹ 180067/- 2. Dr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any claim of such interest paid/shown payable to the partners of ₹ 7,04,160/-. 12. Ld. DR has supported the order of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As far as the relations of M/s Chirag International Jaipur and Dr. Neelu Vashishta are concerned, the assessee s explanation is not convincing, therefore, the same cannot be considered. However, there is some force in the argument of the ld counsel that the assessee company had sufficient interest free funds available to its own. We find merit in the arguments of the ld counsel that if sufficient interest free funds are available with the assessee, then the issue of interest free a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
