9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has shown a loan of Rs. 2 crore from USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, on which it has claimed to have paid interest @ 15% amounting to Rs. 12,50,000. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to furnish confirmation of the lender. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee could neither furnish the loan confirmation nor offered any explanation about the nature and source of the loan. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the loan availed of Rs. 2 crore along with interest paid on it amounting to Rs. 12,50,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. On the basis of submissions made by the assessee and evidences filed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In his remand report, the Assessing Officer being satisfied with assessee's explanation that the amount of Rs. 2 crore received from USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is not a loan but advance for sale of land, observed that the transaction relating to the amount of Rs. 2 crore received by the assessee stood explained. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident, assessee wanted to sell one of its property in Delhi to USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. since it needed finance for its business activities. It is also a fact on record that since the assessee could not hand over the possession of the property within the agreed period, it paid the interest on the advance received as per the terms of the agreement. Therefore, there is factually no dispute on the issue of payment of interest by the assessee. Therefore, once the nature and source of amount of Rs. 2 crore received by the assessee is accepted, the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer by treating the advance received as unexplained cash credit has to be deleted. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. This ground is dismissed. 8. In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance made on account of payment of club entry fee amounting to Rs. 3,60,000. 9. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 3,60,000 on account of club entrance fee, called upon the assessee to furnish the details and justify the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused material on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer relying upon the assessment order passed in assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03 has included the payment made to other hoteliers in the total receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD of the Act. However, when identical issue arising in assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03 came up for consideration before the Tribunal in ITA no.1924/Mum./2007, dated 19th January 2018, the Tribunal has held as under:- "26. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorizes below. The AO included first receipt i.e. Rs. 30.31 (approx) crore in receipt of business holding that there is not express provision in section 80HHD for exclusion from the total receipt. Receipt no.2 of Rs. 66.39 lakhs was included by AO holding that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and these receipt accrued to the assessee during the previous year relevant to AY 2001-02. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the fact and submission of the assessee concluded that the amount charged by assessee from foreign tourist includes payment for lodging, boarding and lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in amounting to Rs. 1,42,03,378. 20. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has included foreign exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 1,42,03,378, in the total receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD of the Act, called upon the assessee to justify the claim. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer having noticed that in the assessment order passed for assessment year 2002-03, similar claim made by the assessee was disallowed, followed the same and disallowed the claim of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as well. 21. While deciding the aforesaid issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee's claim by following his decision in case of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03. 22. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is noticed that identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA no.1924/Mum./2007, dated 19th January 2018. The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding as under:- "24. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the orders of authorities below. The AO disallowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the assessee that there being no unexplained expenditure, disallowance under section 69C of the Act cannot be made, however, he held that apart from filing copy of ledger accounts, which were not authenticated by the creditor, the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the amount of Rs. 77,24,237, credited in the books of account. Accordingly, he treated it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 28. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee maintains running account with various hotels at Goa for booking rooms on behalf of the customers. He submitted, the amount payable to the hotel is shown as trade creditors in the books of account. He submitted, while the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) treated it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, that too, without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain that the ingredients of section 68 of the Act are not applicable. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee has furnished all evidences to prove the gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
