9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was unable to file complete bills/vouchers and other details, such as log books, and other documentary evidence to support the expenses - also been pointed out by the AO that some expenses have been incurred in cash and there are hand written and self- made vouchers - CIT (A) held that there is always possibility to inflate the expenditure on the basis of self- made vouchers which we are unable to accept - HELD THAT:-As gone through the assessment order and the reason given by the Assessing Officer that the expenses are neither fully vouched nor fully verifiable. The AO did not bring on record as to what enquiries he wanted to conduct for verification of the vouchers. No disallowance is warranted owing to non-verification of the vouchers produced by the assessee. With regard to the expenses for which no vouchers have been produced, the assessee is hereby given another opportunity to produce all the bills and vouchers before the revenue authorities. Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6991/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2021 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Y. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised return in accordance with Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The revised computation submitted before the AO is as under: Income from business and profession -11,962,975.00 REGENT GRAND Business Loss as per Original Computation -27,189.00 Unabsorbed Depreciation -2,911,214.00 Less: Interest paid on overdraft -1,917,560.00 PROPERTY BUSINESS -4,855,963.00 Loss as per Profit Loss Account not claimed in the original computation -7,107,012.00 Income from Capital Gain -13,674,227.00 As per Original Computation of Income Income from Other Sources -15,532.00 Net Loss to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipments, air- conditioner, and other plant machinery for the use of firm M/ s. Regent Grand. The funds were transferred from the OD limit in the saving account and in the firm M/s. Regent Continental for repayment of EMI of ICICi Bank Term Loan and also for purchase of assets. While finalizing the balance sheet of the firm, the payment made before 15th Oct, 2012 were taken to Capital A/ c without going into depth about the sources of capital. The interest paid on OD withdrawal on account of the assessee has been worked out and submitted to your office. The interest paid is allowable as business expense thus the same is claimed in the revised computation. Due to time limitation, the revised return cannot be filed thus the claim made during the assessment proceedings may be allowed. The detail of amount utilized out of the said OD A/c is separately furnished for verification Sources of Capital in the Firm The assessee had taken loan of ₹ 1260 lacs from ICICI Bank in Oct, 2010 for purchase of land and construction of building. The assessee purchased plot for construction of hotel of ₹ 804 lacs and paid stamp duty. Total amount ₹ 8,36,66,10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no clarification as to whether the claim of building as stock in trade of Sh. Satbir Singh has been later revised. A revised computation of Smt. Bimla Devi was however, filed claiming that the same building was stock in trade of property business of the appellant Thus the appellant made a fresh claim of existence of a new business interest - property business - which was never in existence at the time of filing of original return or in the preceding previous year. There is no evidence that the appellant is in the business of purchase and sale of property. The only instance filed as evidence by the appellant is assessment order for assessment year 2004 -05 in which the appellant had purchased land and constructed some shops which were sold during the year, but these were also shown as profit on sale of shops and not as a property business. Thus it is apparent that the claim made by the appellant of existence of property business is an afterthought to claim interest paid on the OD limit of bank of Baroda, which is otherwise not an admissible expense since, there is no nexus with the existing business of the appellant. Keeping in view the above facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
