9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "(i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, partially by Rs.1,23,68,883/-. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the interest @ 18% P.a. by accepting pro-rata basis. (iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance of business loss of Rs.5,00,00,000/- when the Ld. CIT(A) was well aware about the facts of the case that the assessee failed to submit any Books of Accounts and documents. Without Books of Accounts and documents the LD. CIT(A) erred in allowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under police seal. The assessee was declared as the defaulter by the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Since the assessee could not furnish the required details, the Ld. AO proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of information available on record. 4.1. The Ld. AO, from the available record, found that the assessee during the year had taken fresh loan to the extent of Rs. 4,46,42,611/- and since the assessee could not verify the aforesaid loan transactions, therefore, the Ld. AO added the aforesaid loan amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. A/R of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp;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 No reply 2,50,000 7 M/s. Anand Agency Pvt.Ltd. 2,00,000 Yes Yes No reply 2,00,000 8 M/s Rup Chand Saraf 9,00,000 Yes Yes Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 9 M/s GoelCottex Ltd. 20,00,000 Yes Yes No reply 20,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2,25,000 Yes No Confirmed, and, amount matches. 0 30 PoddarStock Proking Pvt. Ltd. 3,47,087 Yes No No reply 3,47,087 31 Manoj Kumar Agarwal 2,00,000 Yes No No reply 2,00,000 32 Krishan Gopal Khaitan 9,60,000 No No - 9,60,000 33 Neelam Khaitan 9,75,000 No No - 9,75,000 34 Bina Rani Surekha 7,00,000 No No - 7,00,000 35 Bishwambhar Lai Saroagi 1,01,875 No No - 1,01,875 36 Rashmi Bharuka 1,50,000 No No [Address and PAN given later on in Rejoinder reply]. 1,50,000 37 Sarda Devi Gupta 5,00,000 No No [Address and PAN given later on in Rejoinder reply]. 5,00,000 38 Binod Kumar Bhartia(HUF) 1,00,000 No No - 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the disallowance so made by the Ld. AO. After hearing the Ld. representative of both the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 4: 8. Vide ground no. 4, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of Ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act of interest expenditure to Rs. 15,41,200/- as against the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,03,866/- made by the Ld. AO. In this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
