9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of assessee’s business and the same constitute trading loss for the assessee. Per query from the bench, the assessee could not produce any agreement / documentary evidences to substantiate this fact and therefore, this addition is confirmed and this ground of assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Addition on account of bad debts written-off - Held that:- After perusal of ledger extract placed in the paper book, we concur with the stand of the Ld. DR that the same reveals no movement in the debtor’s balances since past many years and does not show fulfillment of condition prescribed u/s 36(2)(i). However, the Ld. AR has contended that the income from these debtors was offered to tax in earlier years and the assessee is in possession of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-11 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 23/02/2015 on following effective grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer erred in not allowing deduction of ₹ 4,00,000/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition which be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the assessing officer erred in making addition of ₹ 25,29,605/- being the bad debts written of which be allowed in full and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition saying that, addition made cannot be allowed u/s.36(2)(i) of the Act. The appellant prays that, the addition made be deleted. 3. On the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance against the same @20%, which amounted to ₹ 20,98,735/-. 2.4 The last addition pertains to Section 14A disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for ₹ 31,837/- since the assessee earned tax exempt income of ₹ 60,550/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested all the additions without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 23/02/2015 where Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee s submissions / contentions, concluded the matter in the following manner:- 5.1 I have carefully and dispassionately considered the facts and circumstances of the case, written submissions of the appellant and arguments made by the AR before the undersigned. Various grounds of appeal are decided as under:- 5.2 GROUND OF APPEA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account in computing the income of the appellant for the previous years in which the amount of such debt or part thereof were made or for an earlier previous year. Secondly, such advances do not represent money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending because the appellant is not engaged in the business of banking or money lending. Thirdly, the appellant has failed to prove that these bad debts were written off and taken into account in computing the income of the appellant for the previous year relevant to A.Y.2010-11 or for an earlier assessment year. Therefore, such bad debts of ₹ 25,29,605/- cannot be allowed u/s.36(2)(i) of the Act in the previous years relevant to A.Y.2010-11 5.3.2 Having regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2014, wherein Hon ble ITAT had confirmed part of such disallowance of cash expenses. 5.4.3 I have carefully and dispassionately considered facts and circumstances of the case. Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai bench has confirmed ₹ 9.18 lakhs under Rule 6DD and further confirmed 50% of the balance disallowance vide paragraph NO.6 of the relevant ITAT order dated 28.10.2014. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of unverified cash expenses of ₹ 20,98,735/-, being 20% of total cash expenses, is considered reasonable and therefore confirmed. Such cash expenses have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of appellant s business. Therefore, ground of appeal no.3 is not allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. First of all, we note computational error in Ld. AO s order since the returned income reflected by the assessee was ₹ 3,84,06,321/- and the assessee suffered addition aggregating ₹ 50,60,177/- and therefore the determined income should has been ₹ 4,34,66,498/- whereas the same has been taken as ₹ 4,25,38,780/- by Ld. AO and therefore, require rectification. 6. Proceeding further on the merits of the appeal, so far as the addition of ₹ 4.00 against write-off of advances is concerned, we are inclined to confirm the same since the assessee could not adduce any material to show that the advances were given in the ordinary course of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
