9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as the "Tribunal") in ITA No. 626/Luc./2006 for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 3. Appellant framed 5 substantial questions of law and this Court admitted appeal on 08.05.2008 on the questions mentioned in the memo of appeal, but today when case was taken up for hearing, after some arguments, learned counsel for revenue pointed out that questions no. I, II, III & V are basically founded on appreciation of facts and in the absence of anything to show that findings are perverse, or there is any misreading of document, or that any relevant evidence has been ignored, these questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 4. Learned counsel for Revenue at this stage, also stated, at the outset, that substantial quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.50 2 Sequence Estate Pvt. Ltd. 30.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 3 Radiant Portifolio Funds 1,596.08 1,596.08 0.00 0.00 1,596.08 4 HMG Time India Ltd. 430.81 430.81 0.00 0.00 430.81 5 Progressive Consultants Ltd. 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 6 Manvi Finance 469.31 469.31 0.00 0.00 469.31 7 Dewan Automobile 9.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8 Sharma Associate 12.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 12.50 9 Black Stone Mining Pvt. Ltd. 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 10 Nipjiv International 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 TOTAL 2,600.20 2,620.20 - - 2,620.20 It is thus clear that on one hand the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest bearing funds were utilised for making any interest free loans/advances to various parties and hence, no interest should be disallowed in the year in question, but A.A. has discarded aforesaid deletion made by CIT (A) only on the ground that department has not accepted decision of CIT (A). So long as CIT (A)'s order is not upset, it was not open to A.A. to ignore the same. Therefore, addition made by him was apparently illegal. This is what has been found by CIT (A) and Tribunal in the appeal preferred against assessment order dated 29.03.2005. CIT(A) has dealt with aforesaid issue in paras 7, 8 & 9 as under: "7. Regarding the addition of Rs. 3,25,03,000/- the Assessing Officer has mentioned in the order that from the examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o argued that during the year no new advances have been taken. Further my attention was drawn to the decision given by me in the case of the appellant in assessment years 1999-2000, 20000-01 and 2001-02 in this respect. 9. I have considered the arguments placed before me by the Ld. Counsels of the appellant. The similar issue has been decided by me in the case of the appellant in assessment year 1999-2000 vide order dated 9.11.2004 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-I/264/CC-III/Lko/02-03-234, in assessment year 2000-01 vide order dated 27.12.2004 in Appeal No. CITt(Appels-I/39/CC-III/Lko/03-04/298 and in assessment year 2001-02 vide order in Appeal No.CIT(A)-I/223/CC-III/Lko/04-05/460 dated 29.3.95. As there is no change in the set of facts, the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
