9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. D/R could not point out any defect or error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) warranting our interference in this respect. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld on this issue. Disallowance out of interest expenditure on loan amount - CIT(A) has deleted the proportionate interest up to the extent the addition on account of the loan amount has been deleted - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has recomputed the interest on the addition confirmed at Rs. 3,22,73,728/- in respect of loan amount and accordingly restricted addition on account of interest to Rs. 5,69,693/-. There is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this respect also. Ad hoc disallowance made out of the business loss claim - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that the Ld. AO had made the aforesaid ad hoc disallowance only on estimation basis without giving any reasoning in this respect. The Ld. CIT(A) has further noted that the disallowance has been made just on mere presumption only that there was neither material nor reason nor rational for the Ld. AO to make the aforesaid disallowance. He further noted that even the accounts of the assessee have been audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing. 3. Before proceeding to adjudicate the grounds taken in this appeal, it is pertinent to mention here that this Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2019 has noted that page no. 2 of the assessment order was missing in the file. The Department was asked to supply the copy of the complete assessment order. However, the Ld. D/R vide letter dated 06.06.2022 has submitted that the issue was highlighted to the concerned authorities where from the concerned Assessing Officer has informed that the complete set of the assessment record for AY 2001-02 in the case of the assessee was not available in his office. It has been further stated that even the Ld. A/R in this case has stated that even the assessee does not have the complete assessment order in his possession. In view of this, we proceed to adjudicate the present appeal with the available records. Ground No. 1: 4. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs. 50,92,49,136/-. On being asked to explain the aforesaid loan transaction, the Ld. A/R showed his inability to produce the books of account and other details since the office of the assessee was under poli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yes Yes Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 2 M/s Narayan Kumar Dhanuka (HUF) 3,00,000 Yes Yes Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 3 M/s R G Sales Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 Yes Yes No reply 50,00,000 4 M/s Rohan Trading Co Pvt Ltd 2,50,000 Yes Yes Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 5 M/s Binod Kumar Bhartia 6,50,000 Yes Yes Confirmed, but amount is at 4,50,000. Difference accepted by appellant. 2,00,000 6 M/s. Dadi Ma Steels India Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,000 Yes Yes N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000 Yes Yes No reply 50,000 20 M/s Badri Prasad Lakkar (HUF) 25,20,000 Yes Yes Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 21 M/s Prakash Chand Lakkar(HUF) 6,20,000 Yes No Confirmed, and, difference explained. 0 22 Prakash Chand Lakkar 21,00,000 Yes No Confirmed, and, difference explained. 0 23 Kanta Lakkar 6,10,000 Yes No Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 24 Mnnju Lakkar 5,00,000 Yes No Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 25 Sabita Lakkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd PAN given later on in Rejoinder reply]. 5,00,000 38 Binod Kumar Bhartia(HUF) 1,00,000 No No - 1,00,000 39 Sushil Kumar Akash Kumar(HUF) 3,00,000 No No - 3,00,000 40 Shanti Devi Dhanuka 1,50,000 No No [Address and PAN given later on in Rejoinder reply]. 1,50,000 41 Ram Kishan Dhanuka 7,50,000 No No [Address and PAN given later on in Rejoinder reply]. 7,50,000 42 Sanjay Bidhawakta (HUF) 7,50,000 No No V 7,50,000 43 BhawnaAgarwa; 5,00,000 No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No - 6,50,000 4,46,42,611 3,22,73,782 5.1. In view of the above chart, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in cases where the concerned parties had confirmed the transaction and the loan amount also matched. In other cases where there was a difference of the amount confirmed by the concerned parties as against the loan amount declared by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) added the difference. In case where there was no reply or notice could not be issued for want of address etc., the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. After reconciliation of the entire figures, out of the total loan amount of Rs. 4,46,42,611/-, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,22,73,782/- and deleted the addition of the remaining amount as the same being confirmed by the concerned parties in the independent inquiries conducted by the Ld. AO by way of issuing summons u/s 133(6) of the Act. It is pertinent to note here, in some cases Ld. A/R had furnished the PAN, address of the parties at a later stage in the rejoinder to the remand report which was rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
