9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 47,05,387/-, made by the AO in respect of unclaimed unsecured loans and that he failed to appreciate that the amount represents income u/s 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The finding of the AO in this regard is that the assessee has not been carrying on any business activity for last many years, till it is showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the conditions mentioned above has been satisfied, the addition has been deleted. 4. Before us, the ld. DR explained the findings of the AO and the ld. CIT(Appeals). Heavy reliance has been placed on the order of the AO to argue that the impugned order may be set aside and the order of the AO may be restored. No authorized person attended on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the liability is capital in nature. It has not been yet written off to profit and loss account. The finding of the AO that the assessee has not been carrying on business is contradicted by him when business loss of ₹ 13,927/- was allowed. Thus, it is not a trading liability allowed in past. It has not been written off to the credit of profit and loss account, wholly or partly. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
