9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to do was to produce the A.O.'s letter dated 20.12.2011 (to him), calling for the explanation for the credits (refer page 2 of the assessment order), as well as the assessee's reply thereto in-as-much as, the difference being substantiate, this would be the first objection that the assessee would have raised in the matter. The A.O. has already confirmed per s. 159 order (supra) the figure adopted in assessment to be in terms of the cash-book produced before him during the assessment proceedings. The assessee's balance-sheet (as on 31.03.2009) (now produced), assuming the same as filed along with the return of income, itself shows the unsecured loans as well as the deposits from the patients to be at ₹ 15.96 lacs and ₹ 5.8 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troduces a timing effect, so that on the deduction of tax and its deposit, the corresponding amount would stand to be allowed as deduction for that year, i.e., the year of deposit/payment - Decided against assessee. Levy of interest u/s. 234B is mandatory and consequential and, accordingly, there is no merit in the assessee's case. - ITA No. 4004/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - Sanjay Arora, AM For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Smt Bharati Singh ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 27.02.2015, dismissing the Assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record perused. The assessee's only case before the Tribunal was that the cash loans received were in fact at a much lower sum of ₹ 3,85,430/-. The papers submitted in support of the claim are not certified as true copies, being, in fact, not in the form of a paperbook. Further, a perusal of the same as well as that filed before the first appellate authority, reveal different figures being claimed as the amount of cash loans, viz. at ₹ 3,55,330/- as per the memo of appeal before the ld. CIT(A); ₹ 4,59,500/- per the statement of cash loans received from 10.08.2008 to 05.01.2009 (adduced now); and at ₹ 3,85,430/-, per the summary of cash-book (adduced now). It has already been explained that the documents being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .45 lacs), on which no income is generated, even as they are financed by borrowed funds, applying interest @ 12% p.a. In appeal, the assessee explained that the amounts were already advanced for the purchase of surgical instruments, on which therefore no interest could be charged. The same did not find favour as the contention was not substantiated with any evidence. In further appeal before this tribunal, no improvement in its case could be made by the assessee. The amounts, it is stated, had been advanced in earlier years. In that case, there would definitely be some correspondence for/or follow-up by the assessee seeking reasons for or to expedite the delay in the purchase, which would substantiate its claims and, besides, also reveal th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asst. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad)). The assessee's reliance in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra) is of little consequence in view of the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, as in the case of CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicate [2013] 216 Taxmann 258 (Cal) and CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar [2013] 357 ITR 312 (Guj), overruling Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra). The matter stands also discussed at length by the tribunal, as in the case of Raviraj Relempaadu [2014] 29 ITR 387 (Mum.)(Trib.) and ITO vs. Pratibhuti Viniyog Ltd. (in ITA No. 1689/Mum/2011 dated 22.08.2014), also discussion and distinguishing the decision by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services [2013] 85 CCH 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
