9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of business - Held that:- Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee never raised any plea that the assessee was having sufficient own interest free funds for advancing interest free loans. This plea of sufficient funds was raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not substantiated its plea from the records. In the absence of any such evidence, the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) is misplaced. The assessee could neither show availability of sufficient interest free funds for advancing such loans nor the assessee has been able to show that loans have been given for business purposes. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the ld. AR of the assessee. - Decided against assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) the assessee furnished certain documents and explanation to substantiate loans and advances. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not convinced with the explanation furnished and rejected the same. In so far as notional interest on interest free loans is concerned the assessee challenged the addition on merits and also made an alternate plea that there were some arithmetical errors in determination of interest on debit balances. According to the assessee the party wise interest @ 13% comes to ₹ 2,28,345/-. There is difference of ₹ 1,48,785/- in the interest computed by the Assessing Officer and the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the alternate plea of the assessee and granted relief of ₹ 1,48,785/-. Against the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Pramod Shingte appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made additions without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee gave explanation along with con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that in proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not give details of the persons from whom advances were received. The Assessing Officer had no other option but to make addition on the basis of information available before him. Even before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee has not fully substantiated source of advances. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order has given categoric findings that the agreements placed on record by the assessee are on a plain paper, they are neither registered nor notarized and the advances have been received in cash. Even before the Tribunal the assessee has not been able to show that the shops against which the advances were received by the assessee have been allotted to the persons from whom advances were accepted. The assessee has not been able to prove the creditworthiness of the alleged buyers. It has been stated that the amount has been paid by the farmers from the compensation received. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the amount of compensation is much less tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 2012 when the impugned order was been passed. The ld. AR has not placed on record a copy of sale agreement in respect of any of the shops even after seven years of the aforesaid agreements to substantiate that the shops were ultimately registered in the name of the persons from whom advances were taken. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order has given a finding that the details of the brokers through whom the shops were sold or agreed to be sold was not furnished. The assessee has further failed to provide any evidence to prove the source of cash advances received from the alleged buyers. The amount of compensation which is said to be source of funds is much less than the amount of advances received or the agreement value of the shops. All the transactions in respect of advances for booking shops are in cash. The ld. AR has not controverted any of the above findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The documents placed on record does not inspire confidence to accept the explanation furnished by the assessee to substantiate the source of advances of ₹ 67,50,000/-. We find the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) well reasoned and detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
