9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scoping benefit to him regarding source of his fixed deposits as well as interest / finance charges. He shall then reexamine this entire inter connected issue as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. This interconnected issue is taken as accepted for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure only in the lower appellate proceedings - HELD THAT:- DR fails to rebut the clinching fact that the impugned addition is based on estimation only than any lack of nexus with the assessee s trading activity in various commodities. The fact also remains that the assessee has also not been able to prove the same by way of cogent supportive evidence. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the impugned disallowance to a lump sum amount of 1 lac only with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. Claim brought forward losses sought to be set off involving sum(s) each carried forward from earlier years and disallowed in the course of assessment as well as in the lower appellate proceedings - HELD THAT:- Both the learned representatives are ad idem on the instant issue requires afresh factual verification / reconciliation of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 'the Act' respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that assessee's instant four cases involve identical / inter-connected issues. His multi folded substantive ground raised in all these assessment years challenge correctness of lower authorities action making various disallowance(s) / addition(s). Most prominent of the said disallowance(s) / addition(s) relate to alleged embezzlement of funds relating to ICIC bank loans followed by interest accrued and paid thereupon. Act of these schemes treated as unexplained income and not allowable as expenditure. These head(s) comprise of assessment year-wise figures of embezzled funds amounting to ₹79,85,25,428/- and ₹77,86,25,900/- interest income on bank fixed deposit (FD in short) of ₹193,48,849/- in first assessment year (2006-07), embezzlement of ₹41,15,86,858/-, retail warehouse receipt of (₹27,60,38,657/-), treated as unexplained since derived from loan funds, FDs of ₹138,87,859/- and interest / finance charges paid to the bank amounting to ₹180,25,512/- in second assessment year (2007-08), excess FD in Andhra Bank of ₹43,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplain why such amounts as stated above should not be considered as your income for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. Besides it is seen that you have shown FD & TDS etc. Of ₹ 10,75,85,213/- during the assessment year and you are asked to explain the source of the same. Apart from that as per the statements of various banks it is seen that the interests paid by the banks against the FD & TDRs are of ₹ 34,53,760/- as against shown by you of ₹ 29,03,081/-. Hence kindly explain as to why the excess amount of interest of rs.5,50,679//- should not be added to your income for the year. In relation your letter No.SAS/AAY/03/04/14 dated 03.04.2014 whereby you have desired to withdraw the appeal preferred by you on 05.02.2009, it is stated that such an action on the part of the undersigned is not permitted under the scheme of the IT Act, 1961. Your reply in writing should reach my office on or before 6.04.2014 positively. In case of any non compliance on your part on such date, it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed enhancement of income. Please note that no adjournment will be allowed in this case as the pending appellate proceeding needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in various commodities. The fact also remains that the assessee has also not been able to prove the same by way of cogent supportive evidence. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the impugned disallowance to a lump sum amount of ₹1 lac only with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. 6. The assessee's next substantive ground in assessment year 2006-07 and second substantive ground in assessment year 2007-08 seeks to claim brought forward losses sought to be set off involving sum(s) of ₹135,26,978/- each carried forward from earlier years and disallowed in the course of assessment as well as in the lower appellate proceedings. Both the learned representatives are ad idem on the instant issue requires afresh factual verification / reconciliation of all necessary details qua the brought forward losses carried forward from earlier assessment years. We therefore restore the instant issues as well back to the Assessing Officer. 7. Staying back in assessment year 2006-07, the assessee has also sought to raise an additional ground seeking to delete alleged inflated purchase disallowance of ₹142,60,162/- made in both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs. We therefore accept this instant appeal (ITA No.1259/Kol/2015) partly for statistical purposes in foregoing terms. 11. Next comes assessment year 2008-09. The assessee's first substantive ground is dismissed as general in nature. It transpires from a perusal of the instant appeal that the assessee's substantive grounds No. 3 to 6 seek to delete disallowance(s) / addition(s) of ₹ 2.45 lakh, ₹633,000/-, ₹30,514/- and ₹316,269/- on account of capital investment of the partnership firm M/s Nataraj Rice Mill, fuel & lubricants expenses and depreciation, disallowance of ₹29,014/- of donation of subscription and godown on account of nondeduction of TDS; respectively. Both the learned representatives submitted in unison since we have restore the impugned issues back to the Assessing Officer (supra) the instant issues may also follow suit since the same adjudicate afresh factual verification. We therefore accept all these remaining substantive ground for statistical purposes and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the same afresh after carrying out necessary factual verification. This appeal ITA No.1437/Kol/2014 is partly allowed for stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
