9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) while deleting the aforesaid disallowance. Under the circumstances, the proposed question nos. (b) and (c) are held against the revenue and so far as the proposed question no. (a) is concerned, as the amount involved is only 2,50,000/-, on the smallness of the amount involved, we decline to entertain the said question. - Decided against revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/-. The assessee had also shown a loss of ₹ 19,98,440/- for the year under consideration. The assessee had paid MAT under Section 115JB on book profit of ₹ 20,26,177/- and, thereafter, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- for purchase of computer software as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance of ₹ 27,60,730/- as unexplained and unverifiable expenses and also made an addition of ₹ 61,23,286/- in respect of unexplained unsecured loan. Consequently, the Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 2,32,42,904/-. 2.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete addition so made. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 2,50,000/-" 2.2 Regarding the addition of ₹ 27,60,730/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the expenses in respect of income is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed to delete the same by observing in paragraph 5.3 as under; "I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions as advanced by the appellant. I am inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect in the claim of such expenditure. Even his disallowing 1/6th of such expenditure has no basis. All these expenditure are billed and properly vouch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the appellant. Therefore, in absence of any specific finding against the ground, the A.O. is not justified in making such adhoc addition. The A.O. is directed to delete such addition. The appellant get relief of ₹ 22,11,811/-." 2.4 Similarly with respect to addition of ₹ 61,23,286/- in respect of unexplained unsecured loans is concerned, considering the material on record, the CIT(A) directed to delete the same by observing in paragraph 7.3 as under; "I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions as advanced by the appellant. I am inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant. Considering the various evidences submitted by appellant before the A.O. and now also before me in the form of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue. He is not in a position to satisfy us how the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed by the tribunal while deleting the disallowance of ₹ 27,60,730/-made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained and unverifiable expenses and deleting the addition of ₹ 61,23,286/- in respect of unexplained unsecured loan can be said to be perverse. Considering the aforesaid finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal, it cannot be said that the tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have committed any error in deleting the aforesaid disallowance. We are in complete agreement with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
