9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y explained the reconciliation. Moreover, there is no revenue effect in such inter- group transaction. The AO has not brought any material if there would be any loss of revenue in transfer of such entry. Considering the fact that the assessee has duly reconciled the entry which has been admitted the by AO in its remand report dated 23.10.2013, this ground of appeal is allowed. Addition of unconfirmed loan - Held that:- We have seen that in the remand report the AO submitted that the difference was rightly added as the documents were not on record during the assessment proceedings. From the contents of the remand report it is clear that the evidence related with journal entry in the books of account of M/s Uma Electricals was filed only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the asset/ factory shed was added in the asset of assessee during the relevant financial year related with the assessment year under consideration. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed. - ITA NO.2053/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Haridas Bhat - AR For The Department : Shri A.K. Nayak - DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH(JM) 1. This appeal by the assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act( Act ) is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) 22, Mumbai dated 16.01.2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: - (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in adding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued that during the assessment the assessee was asked to reconcile the net difference of ₹ 8,03,398/- being difference in the closing balance difference as per the books of the assessee. The assessee submitted that ₹ 2,84,262/- was on account of interest charged by the party on outstanding payment with reference to the balance payment of ₹ 5,19,136/-, the assessee furnished the proper reconciliation of the difference explaining that it has arisen on account of intercompany transaction with sister concern i.e. M/s Uma Electricals. The assessee had explained that M/s Uma Electricals had made payment of ₹11,50,000/- on behalf of assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 by debiting M/s Anil Agency and crediting M/s Shree Uma Electricals. The ld CIT(A) concluded that the journal entry was passed on 01.04.2009 in the books of the assessee debiting M/s Anil Agency and crediting M/s Uma Electricals cannot explain the transaction for AY 2009-10. We have seen that the observation of ld CIT(A) is unfounded. The assessee has properly explained the reconciliation. Moreover, there is no revenue effect in such inter- group transaction. The AO has not brought any material if there would be any loss of revenue in transfer of such entry. Considering the fact that the assessee has duly reconciled the entry which has been admitted the by AO in its remand report dated 23.10.2013, this ground of appeal is allowed. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as unconfirmed unsecured loan in the income of the assessee. During the first appellate the assessee furnished the reconciliation, on which the AO submitted remand report dated 14.10.2013 filed on 23.10.2013. In the remand proceedings the assessee explained that due to the omission of journal entry in the books of the M/s Uma Electrical the discrepancy occurred and not the item of escaping income. We have seen that in the remand report the AO submitted that the difference was rightly added as the documents were not on record during the assessment proceedings. From the contents of the remand report it is clear that the evidence related with journal entry in the books of account of M/s Uma Electricals was filed only at the stage of remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us. Considering the facts that no evidence with regards to put to use the vehicle was brought on record before the lower authorities, hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding of ld CIT(A) qua this ground of appeal. In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No.4 relates to disallowance of depreciation on factory shed. The ld AR for the assessee argued that AO gave his finding that the assessee has not substantiated with documentary evidence that addition was made in the factory building of the assessee. The AO further observed that no proof of source fund, proof of payment was filed before him. The assessee furnished all the evidence during the assessment. It was brought in the notice that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
