9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Hon ble High Court and thus holds the field, as on date, therefore, there arises no occasion for keeping the present appellate proceedings in abeyance. We thus finding no merit in the appeal of the revenue, we dismiss the same. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1534/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2019 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Dr. P. Da niel, Spl. Counsel For the Respondent : Shri Akash Kumar, C.A ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-49, Mumbai, dated 28.12.2017, which in turn arises from the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess loss . Also, it was observed by the A.O, that the assessee had advanced an interest free loan of ₹ 105,33,15,113/-. On a perusal of the profit and loss account, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had debited an interest expenditure of ₹ 12,12,79,721/- on the interest bearing borrowed funds. As the assessee failed to substantiate that the interest bearing borrowed funds were utilised for its business purposes, therefore, the A.O disallowed the interest expenditure of ₹ 12,12,79,721/- and added back the same to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under Sec. 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the A.O qua the aforesaid disallowance of interest expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.05.2009, the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. After perusing the facts, the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.2010 restored the matter back to the CIT(A), with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the meantime, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 25.07.2012 decided the quantum appeal of the assessee. Observing, that the issues involved were squarely covered by the assesses own cases for A.Y. 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the additions made on account of share trading loss and interest disallowance were deleted by the Tribunal. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was observed by the CIT(A), vide his order dated 28.12.2017, that as the quantu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing off the quantum appeal of the assessee, before the Hon ble High Court, therefore, the matter may be kept in abeyance for the time being. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and find that the quantum additions, viz. (i) disallowance of business loss of share trading: ₹ 3,67,28,998/- ; and (ii) disallowance of interest expenditure ₹ 12,12,29,721/- had been deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order passed in ITA No.848/Mum/2008, dated 25.07.2012, while disposing off the quantum appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: 13. After considering the rival submissions and after perusing the co-ordinate bench decision in Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the amounts are borrowed the liability to pay interest for the whole year has crystallised in view of this the amount debited to assessee s account by the said bank in the bank statement at ₹ 9,93,67,932/- is certainly an allowable amount. Assessee relied on many case laws to support that the entries in the books of account are not paramount and the liability is an allowable claim. Since there is no denial of the fact that assessee has borrowed funds and interest for the whole year has to be allowed as deduction, not providing the amount in the P L Account but quantifying in the notes to the account does not prevent the assessee in claiming the amount as an allowable deduction in its computation of income. The amount is allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no.3, raised by the assessee. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the contention advanced by the ld. A.R, that now when the very genesis for the imposition of the penalty had been vacated and is no more in existence as on date, therefore, the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) can no more survive on a standalone basis. As regards the contention of the ld. D.R, that as the order of the Tribunal has been assailed before the Hon ble High Court, therefore, on the said count, the present appeal may be kept in abeyance, we are afraid does not find favour with us. In our considered view, as the order of the Tribunal has not been stayed by the Hon ble High Court and thus holds the field, as on date, therefore, there arises no occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
