9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring on 12.05.2022. There was no proceeding on 12.05.2022, the appeal was adjourned to 20.07.2022. It is noted from the order sheet that from 20.07.2022, again on 25.08.2022 and today on 13.10.2022 there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee, but the appeal was adjourned from 20.07.2022 to 13.10.2022 for non-appearance of assessee. Therefore, there was no material placed on record by the assessee nor appeared through its authorized representative. Therefore, considering the material available on record, having no explanation offered by the assessee, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). We totally agree with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) vide para 3 of the impugned order. Thus, ground of appeal no.1 raised by the assessee is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find no representative on behalf of the assessee nor any application for seeking adjournment. 4. Since the issue raised in both the appeals are similar based on same identical facts therefore, with the consent of ld. DR, we proceed to hear both the appeals together. 5. First, we shall take up ITA No.540/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14. 6. Brief facts relating to case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of hotel and derivative trading. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.Nil and the said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Under scrutiny, a notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to said notices, the assessee filed acknowledgement of income tax retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the show-cause issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow of interest at the rate of 15% placing reliance in the case of Ravindra Singh Arora vs. ACIT reported in 53 SOT 124 (Hyderabad) and made disallowance of Rs.58,65,000/- (Rs.3,91,00,000/- @ 15%) on account of interest on loans/advances for non-business purpose. It is noted from the impugned order that the CIT(A) has given 13 notices intimating dates for hearing which are reproduced in page no.2 to 4 of impugned order. On an examination of such details, we find the assessee through its authorized representative sought adjournment from time to time on the ground that the relevant documents were seized by the Pune Police. Having no evidence forthcomi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .w. Rule 8D should not be applied. It appears from para 5 of the assessment order that the assessee filed submissions but, however, not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. Further, it is noted no details were furnished by the assessee regarding the profits accumulated by the assessee and its utilization for investments in subsidiary company. Further, the Assessing Officer by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) made disallowance u/s 14A for an amount of Rs.15,69,315/- [Rs.13,10,967/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs.2,58,348/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii)]. As discussed above in ground of appeal no.1, no evidences whatsoever brought on record by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
