9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue s stand qua the foregoing additional expenditure that all these documents require the Assessing Officer s necessary factual verification. We therefore restore the instant former issue of interest disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for his verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. This former substantive issue is accepted for statistical purposes. CIT-A Restoring the issue of TDS and advance tax claim(s) - Since the power to set aside is no more available to him in light of Section 251(1)(a) containing the omission to this effect vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f.01-06-2001. We find merit in the assessee s grievance in principle and deem it appropriate to restore the instant latter issue back to the Assessing Officer at the same time to verify the corresponding facts pertaining to the impugned twin heads. - I.T.A. No. 235/HYD/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2021 - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer s action to this effect reads as under: 5.Ground 1: Disallowance u/s.37(1) of ₹ 94,28,655/- towards the Interest payment to M/s.Gajmukh Investments Private Limited: 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of ₹ 94,28,655/- on account of interest paid to M/s.Gajmukh Investments Private Limited. However, it was found that the total outstanding advance from Gajmukh in the books of assessee company (post merger) was only ₹ 55lakhs. Thus, the interest claimed is incommensurate to the principal amount on which the interest has been claimed to have been paid. Thus, the assessee was asked to provide the detailed working of such interest charged to P L statement. In response, the assessee stated that Interest paid was ₹ 94,24,577/- to M/s.Gqjmuckh Investmerits Private limited for the amount borrowed from it. Rate of interest was 18%. The assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that the total interest paid was ₹ 94,24,577/- by M/s Everbig Properties Finvest Private Limited to M/s',Gajmukh Investments Private Limited for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing: (1) The appellant submitted that in the year under consideration M/s.Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt Ltd has merged into the assessee company with effect from 01.04.2012 as per High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dt.02.07 :2013. (2) The appellant submitted that during the financial years 2004-05 and 2006-07 i.e., before merger M/s. Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt Ltd has borrowed an amount of ₹ 54,75,000/- from M/s.Gajmukh Investmets Pvt Ltd. This money has been received by the MIs. Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt Ltd, through the banking channel via Indian Overseas Bank Account No. 043202000002838. This fact can be appreciated from the Ledger of Gajmukh Investment Pvt Ltd and Indian Overseas Bank ledger in books of M/s. Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt Ltd for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2013. (3) The appellant submitted that M/s.Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt Ltd does not having funds to repay the above, loan amount to M/s,Gajmukh Investments Pvt Ltd accordingly an understanding was reached between them to repay along with interest at 18% p.a from the date of borrowinq. As per the understanding, interest from 2004- 05 became due on 2012-13 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the appellant. This casts doubt regarding 'the liabiiity of the appellant after the merger. No evidence has been brought before me to show that this amount stands payable. No bank account has been given by the appellant where they have paid the said amount to Mis. Gajmukh Investments Pvt Ltd, Secondly, in the submissions of the appellant, i~ has been referred to an 'Understanding'. No such documentation regarding so called understanding or any agreement has been submitted to support the contention of the appellant. Thirdly, in the leger account of M/s.Gajrriukh Investments Pvt 'Ltd in the books of M/s.Everbig Properties Finvest Pvt. Ltd, there is a difference ₹ 39,49,577/- (₹ 94,24,577 - ₹ 54,75,000) in terms of payables as referred by the appellant. Hence, the accounts also are not supportable. Even the contention regarding deduction of TDS in the above payment also is not proved by any evidence like Form 26AS, or payment challan. In light of this, the appellant has not able to prove that there was such a liability to pay to M/s.Gajmukh Investments Pvt Ltd. No documentary evidence could be' provided by the appellant as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
