9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented cost of such funds which was a business loss. The adverse inference drawn by the learned CIT(A) against the assessee on the basis of withdrawal of such loss partly was also not correct as the reasons for such withdrawal proposed by the assessee were duly explained and the fact that the assessee-company by entering into these transactions had availed finance for the purpose of business was duly established. Applicability of TDS provision - assessee has pointed out from the relevant details of transactions that the sale proceeds were received by the assessee-company from different entities while payment towards the purchase was made towards different entities. The cost of finance thus was not paid to the party from whom the finance was actually availed and the applicability of TDS, therefore, was not warranted. Moreover, the cost incurred by the assessee for availing finance was not strictly in the nature of interest and the party selling the goods having offered the same for taxation, there is no obligation of deduction of tax at source by the assessee. Having regard to all these facts of the case, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 - HELD THAT:- As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee by relying on the relevant judicial pronouncements including the decision of Ashima Syntex Ltd, [ 2000 (8) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the assessee is entitled for depreciation at full rate as the concerned plant was ready to use on 27.09.2010 itself as agreed by the authorities below also and the business of the assessee was already in existence. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the said plant at full rate as claimed by the assessee and allow Ground No.7 of the assessee s appeal. Unexplained expenditure - AO disallowed the assessee s claim on account of debit notes raised by NKPL and the amount of such debit notes was added by him to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained expenditure - HELD THAT:- Amount of debit note in question was duly recognized by NKPL as its profit which was offered to tax and keeping in view that the assessee-company was a BIFR company since 2002 incurring consistent losses, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the debit notes were raised to reduce the taxable income of the assessee-company as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 68 of the Act merely on the ground that the same had remained unpaid. Moreover, the entire corresponding sales made by the assessee-company to the parties through NSEL was duly recognized as its income in the books of account and the proceeds against the same cannot be treated as income of the assessee again as the same would amount to double addition. We, therefore, delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and allow Ground No.8 of the assessee s appeal. Claim for business loss - action of AO in treating the loss in question as speculative loss instead of trading loss - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the submission made by both the sides, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to establish that all the transactions resulting in the business loss in question were made at the prevailing market price and it was not a case where the goods purchased at higher rate were sold by the assessee-company at lower rate in order to claim trading loss. Non-genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,038/-. Although the said return was originally processed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" in short), the case was subsequently selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by him to the assessee on 14.09.2012. During the course of assessment proceedings, complexities and doubts about the accounts of the assessee-company were noticed as it was a group concern of N.K. Proteins Group which was involved in transactions with National Spot Exchange Ltd. ("NSEL" in short) and the assessee-company had also carried out certain transactions on NSEL platform. In order to ascertain whether the transactions with its sister-concerns were completed by the assessee-company by actual delivery of stocks or merely multiple transactions of the same stocks were done with a view to artificially inflate turnover, Special Audit of the books of accounts of the assessee-company for the year under consideration was ordered under Section 142(2A) of the Act by the competent authority. Due to financial irregularities and default in payments to investors, the NSEL was investigated by various Government agencies. In this connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs.43.80 Crores, that it got from the so called financing transactions, for the purpose of its business the interest expenses claimed to have been incurred on the said finance is disallowed." 4.1 On the basis of the above findings/observations recorded by him, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.14,42,91,136/- as speculative loss and the claim of the assessee that the same being interest expenditure allowable as deduction was disallowed by him. 5. The action of the Assessing Officer in treating the amount of Rs.14,42,91,136/- as speculative loss was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and the following submissions were made on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) in writing in support of its case that the amount in question being finance charges/interest was deductible as business expenditure and the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as speculative loss:- "5. Regarding addition on account of trading transactions on NSEL platform and loss incurred at Rs. 14,42,91,136/-. 5.1 The Assessing Officer in para 4 of the assessment order has referred trading practice of the commodities on NSEL i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m that the appellant has incurred loss of Rs. 14,42,91,136/- on the transactions of cotton wash oil on NSEL through NK Proteins. The Party-wise summary of the transactions of sale and' purchase is reproduced on page 8 to 10 of the assessment order. The transactions stated by him are summarized as under:- Sale of NKIL Purchase of NKIL Goods traded Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Profits/losses Castor seeds 333154875 12778992143 333154875 13071300187 (-)292308045 Indian castor oil 47070000 4231635650 47070000 4309751760 (-)78116110 Cotton wash oil 90079620 4670418546 90079620 4747764011 (-)77345466 Total:- (-}447769621 Keeping in view the background of para 5.2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow the above loss on the ground that the transactions were not supported by the delivery of goods. The appellant had, therefore, explained before the AO that :- i) the transactions were entered into through NK Proteins, broker of the NSEL and that transactions are basically in the nature of financial transactions. ii) The appellant had entered into sale and purchase of both. The sale and purchase invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion within 3 days i.e. on settlement of T+3 contract. As against this, NK Corporation makes payment for purchase made by it under T+36 contract from the purchasing party of NK Inds. and it has to pay on the settlement date, after 36 days. The assesses pays to NK Corporation the purchase consideration on the expiry of T+36 contract. VI) Similar contracts are being entered into and the funds are received as per T+3 contract which are repaid as per T+36 contract. VII) For the above purpose, NK Proteins also maintains margin account of certain percentage of value of transaction on NSEL. VIII) The Assessing Officer has not accepted the above contentions vide para 7.16 to 7.20 of the order. The main reasons given by him are summarized as under i) The transactions are fictitious for purchase & sale on NSEL platform, without actual delivery of goods. (para 7.14) ii) There was no real transaction of purchase and sale but the transactions were given to obtain the funds from the investor on short term basis. (para 7.15 & 7.16) iii) If the appellant's contention that it is a finance transaction, is accepted, it represents interest element which is not reflected in the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst goods purchased from NK Corpn. Similarly, goods purchased by IBMA are adjusted against goods sold to NK Corpn. and goods purchased by NK Corpn. from IBMA are adjusted against the goods sold to NKIL. v) Thus, in the process, the NKIL gets funds of Rs,100 for a period of at least 36 days. The difference between the payment made by it at Rs.112 and the payment received at Rs.100 is the cost of finance of Rs. 100 for the period of 36 days. Copies of bills representing one such trading cycle are enclosed which is explained as above. Slide / chart explaining above cycle and fund-flow arising there from is enclosed. It was with reference to the above contention explained before the AO that the transactions are of the nature to garner funds for business and that the difference being the trading loss is in fact the cost. It was explained that the appellant had obtained the funds for the purpose of its business, and hence, the cost is admissible as business expenditure. In the light of the above facts, the AO's observation that there was no actual transfer of goods i.e. purchase or sales is not material for admissibility of the claim. What is important is that it represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies are already investigating the role of the appellant as well as the N.K. Group concerns. The Investigation wing of Income-tax Department too had surveyed the N.K. Group u/s.133A of the Act on 22/8/2013. The appellant itself has admitted that the T+3 and T+36 transactions were in the nature of paired contracts and there was no underlying commodities in these contracts. It is also seen from the findings of FMC, as mentioned earlier, that A.O has correctly drawn the conclusion that these were the trade contracts without any actual delivery of the goods. Shri Nilesh Patel, Director of the appellant has also admitted the said fact. The A.O has summarised the finding at para 7.19 page-17 of the assessment order. I completely agree with the findings of the A.O. The appellant has tried to defend itself by taking the argument such as the substance of transaction should be considered and not the form of the transaction. Further, the appellant has tried to blame NSEL that it was that promoted the appellant to enter into such trading transactions. The books of accounts audited by the special auditor also reflect that the appellant itself has considered these transactions as trading transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant were without any physical delivery these transactions are treated as speculative in nature and the loss incurred is speculative loss which cannot be set off against the normal business income. Therefore, the addition of Rs.14,42,91,136/- is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed." 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has suffered a loss of Rs.14,42,91,136/-, but the Assessing Officer disallowed the same stating therein that it is a speculative loss. The Ld.AR submitted that a reference was made for audit u/s.142(2A) only on the basis of some newspaper report and on that basis it was presumed that the assessee's case is required a special audit. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee incurred loss in respect of cotton wash oil. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee entered into transactions with NSEL as broker which were basically of financial nature. The modus operandi followed by NSEL to enter into sales and purchase transactions and related to same invoices were prepared with quantitative details. The VAT is also charged on purchases and sales and wherever VAT is payable, it is actually paid by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a different entity. As it is considered as trading loss, there is no question of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Great Eastern Shipping related to interest which was decided by the Apex Court. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that as regards ground No.4, there was no transfer of goods and the assessee could not explain as to why the route of exchange, i.e. NSEL has been taken. The DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. submitted that the borrowers and lenders entered into a pair of contracts for every deal and conceptually NSEL was set up as an online trading platform for a number of commodities and each commodity as its delivery locations at NSEL designated warehouse or accredited godowns. But as per information the said platform was misused. Client of M/s. N. K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd. submitted that M/s. N. K. Industries Ltd. executed T+3 contract in the elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as speculative transaction and the loss incurred thereon cannot be speculative loss. The contention of the Ld. D.R. that the N. K. Proteins and its client has executed T+3 and T+36 trade contracts itself establishes that there was a transaction to that effect from the platform of NSEL for which the NSEL has maintained a settlement account with HDFC Bank in the name of N. K. Protein Ltd.. For the purpose of carrying out transaction with NSEL they use to keep 3.5% of the value of the transaction as margin money of this account which is released only after the transaction is over. But since the transaction was not materialized in end the settlement amount was received in consonance with these business transactions from NSEL and thus it cannot be treated as speculative loss and is a part of business loss. As rightly contended on behalf of the assessee-company, the exercise of re-characterization of transactions in the light of statement given by Shri Nilesh Patel should be restricted to only determination of correct taxable income. The relevant purchase and sales transactions were entered into by the assessee-company in order to avail the funds and, therefore, the loss incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even at the time of hearing before us, nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the assessee to prove that the tax at source was deducted from the amount in question paid towards transaction charges. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Ground No.5 of the assessee's appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. As regards the next issue raised in Ground No.6 relating to disallowance of Rs.1,30,29,338/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of transaction charges, the relevant facts are as follows. During the course of Special Audit, it was noticed that transaction charges were paid by the assessee-company for transactions on NSEL platform in connection to caster seeds, soya bean seeds, castor oil and cotton wash oil. Although it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that such transaction charges were not debited to the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer found that the same were debited and included in the purchases. In this regard, it was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the auditors in the course of special audit, it was stated that the payment had not accepted such transaction charges and not recorded the same in the books, and hence, it is presumed by the AO that the assessee has confirmed that it is not debited to P&L A/c. Therefore, the question of recovery thereof from the client does not arise. According to him, the appellant has thus confirmed that it is liable to recover the transaction charges. This conclusion of the assessee is only his presumption. At the time of special audit, as the transaction charges were not separately debited in the P&L A/c., but it was debited as part of purchase cost, the concerned person had explained that it has not been debited to P& L A/c. However, it does not mean that it was conceded by him that charges are recoverable. The appellant submits that this contention of the Assessing Officer is not correct. It is the discretion of the businessman as to how the transactions are to be carried out. Whether the transaction charge paid by it to the Exchange are to be recovered or not, is the discretion of the assessee and the AO cannot ask the assessee to carry out the business as per his opinion. It is held by c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form of exchange. Over a period of time the % of said brokerage or commission has gone down. Here, the appellant is further willing to incur expenses on behalf of clients, which is difficult to understand. Rest of all the expenses because of transactions are charged to the client. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the A.O and hereby confirm the disallowance of Rs. 1,30,29,338/- on account of transaction charges debited to P & L A/c. by the appellant. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed." 12. The learned Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page No.34 of the paper book to point out that the transaction charges of Rs.1,30,29,398/- were actually paid/incurred by the assessee-company. He submitted that the said charges incurred by the assessee represented additional cost of funds raised and utilized; and, since there was no requirement of TDS, it should have been allowed as deduction as rightly claimed by the assessee. He submitted that the factum and quantum of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards transaction charges was not disputed by the authorities below and disallowance was made merely because the assessee did not recover the same from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the requirement for allowability of any expenditure as business expenditure is that the same should be wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and not necessarily. Keeping in view the said decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and having regard to the facts of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of transaction charges is not justifiable and deleting the same, we allow Ground No.6 of the assessee's appeal. 15. As regards the issue raised in Ground No.7 relating to the disallowance of Rs.6,04,648/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), it is observed that the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the concerned plant was restricted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of 50% on the ground that even though the said plant was ready to commence the operation, the actual production had started only after 30.09.2010. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee by relying on the relevant judicial pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the business purpose only. The same deserves to be deleted. 7. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,66,584/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act as the Employees contribution to PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. 8. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition u/s68 to the extent of Rs.52.01 crore out of Rs.244.98 crores added by the AO as unexplained expenditure. The same deserves to be deleted. He ought to have appreciated that this amount is acknowledge as payable and is paid in subsequent year and thus, there is no justification for the addition confirmed by him. 18. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee in this appeal; the same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 19. As regards Ground No.4 raised by the assessee in this appeal, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to disallowance made by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore requested NKPL who is Star Trading Export House [Certificate Page No. 80] to buy from NKIL for the purpose of exports as per the terms and conditions stated in the correspondence and MOU as referred to above. NKIL does not enjoy any banking facilities since it is BIFR Company as per BIFR Order dated 31-03-2014 [Page No. 112 of Paper Book- Para No. 15.1&15.2]. 5.4 The main terms as per MOU are as under: (1) NKPL shall purchase at the prevailing market rate during F, Y. 2010- 2011, (2) If the purchases are exported by NKPL than the price realized will belong to NKIL. In other words, if there is a profit it will belong to NKIL and if there is a loss the same will also belong to NKIL (3) NKPL shall charge 1% trade margin on average purchase price. (4) NKPL shall retain the export incentives that may be received as a result of the exports made by us and we shall bear all the export expenses as stated by you. (5) Any export incentives that may realize as a result of the exports in overseas market shall belong to NKPL (6) NKPL shall bear all the export expenses such as transportation from factory at Kadi to Kandla Port, storage charges for storing the castor oil and deri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exports. It may please be noted that the export expenses of Rs. 32.78 Crore are only direct expenses and that indirect expenses in the form of managerial remuneration and other administrative facilities are not considered. NKPL has competent staff for entering into export agreements and for its execution to maintain its brand name. If indirect cost is considered than NKPL has made only nominal profit and not as is seen from the figures mentioned in the notice." 20.1 The above explanation offered by the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons:- "i) The contention of the assessee that the debit notes are received not on account of poor quality of FSG Oil sold to NKPL but in respect of Export Expenses incurred according to MOU dated 20.04.2010 entered between NKPL and NKIL, is not tenable. Because the statement of the assessee is in contravention as it has credited the sums in its books of account on account of poor quality of FSG Oil. Further, according to para 6 of the MOU it is clearly evident that the Export expenses are to be borne by the NKPL only. ii) The assessee contended that the debit notes were issued as per the MOU dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vii) In any circumstances, two different stands cannot be taken in respect of any sum credited or debited in books of accounts to Standard Principals of Accounting. Therefore the dual stand taken by the assessee on account of debit notes of Rs. 32.79 crores cannot be sustained and accordingly liable to be rejected." 20.2 For the reasons given above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim on account of debit notes raised by NKPL and the amount of such debit notes was added by him to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 20.3 The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by treating the amount of debit notes as unexplained expenditure was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and the following submissions in writing were made on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) in support of its case. "i) As explained before the AO, the debit notes are issued in terms of the MOD i.e. agreement between the parties. Merely because MOD is on plain paper it does not justify the rejection of the claim made by NKPL by issue of debit notes. The appellant submits a copy of the chart furnished by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve alleged that the debit note is merely shifting of profit from NKIL to MKPL and to keep assessee company under loss, is totally irrelevant. The auditor has to appreciate that there was no avoidance of tax from the transactions referred to above. The assessee company is having loss whereas NKPL is having taxable income chargeable at 30%. The auditors have stated that the debit note is dubious and colourable device to make the assessee company as sick company. However, he has to failed to appreciate that there is no benefit of having a sick company. Further, the assessee company is sick company under BIFR since 2002 as explained before the AO, and that therefore, the debit note referred to by him would not effect the said status of sick company. Also one fails to understand as to how the assessee group would stand to gain in terms of its overall income tax liability when there is an increase in loss in an already loss making entity, vis-a-vis an increase in profit in a profit making entity. Accordingly, the very argument of the Assessing Officer goes against his logic. iv) Having regard to the above explanation, the entire disallowance made by the AO is based on presumption of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strictly a commercial transaction. As NKPL was a star trading export house the appellant requested NKPL to buy from it for the purpose of exports as per the terms and conditions of the MOU. As per the MOU NKPL would purchase at market rate from NKIL and if these purchases are exported then the price realised will belong to the appellant i.e. the profit or loss would belong to the appellant. Apart from this, NKPL would be also charging 1% and trade margin on average purchase price and it would be also entitled to export incentives. However, the A.O has not accepted the contention of the appellant. According to the A.O, the perusal of books of accounts reflect that the appellant has credited its sums in its books of accounts on account of poor quality of FSG oil, therefore, the contention of the appellant that the debit notes were not received on account of poor quality of FSG oil to NKPL in respect of export expenses is not tenable. Further, according to the A.O the appellant has debit note received from NKPL towards the poor quality of FSG oil on 2872/2011 and 31/3/2011. The A.O at page-24 has reproduced the scanned copies of the books of accounts for its support. The special audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n namely Tirupati Proteins for exports. The appellant has loaded the cost of rate difference, trade margins of 1% of the value of goods and VAT @5% resulting into raising of debit note amounting to Rs.32,79,68,772/- by NKPL. Further, considering that the debit note was issued at the fag end of the year that too on account of poor quality of FSG oil, I agree with the finding of the A.O that the MOU is an afterthought and confirm the addition of Rs.32,79,68,772/- on account of unexplained expenses debited to P & L A/c. Thus, the said addition is confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that exports were made by the assessee-company through N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd. and as per the agreement with them, invoices were regularly raised by the assessee-company with an understanding that the difference in actual realization from exports will be finally adjusted. He submitted that debit/credit notes were accordingly issued by NKPL for the difference between the amount of invoices raised by the assessee and the amount actually realized through exports and the same were duly accounted for by the assessee-company in its books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of FSG Oil on the assessee. The break-up of such expenses were given during the assessment proceedings by the assessee. It is not disputed fact that assessee has returned the loss whereas N. K. Proteins Ltd. has returned the profit and paid the taxes thereon on the said transaction which is a commercial transaction. As per the understanding between the assessee-company and the NKPL, invoices were being raised by the assessee on NKPL at the agreed rate for the goods to be exported through NKPL. At the time of actual export of the said goods, NKPL at many times used to realize a different rate than the rate charged by the assessee in the invoices for various reasons including the quality difference. Since the assessee company was accountable for these differences as per understanding with NKPL, NKPL raised debt/credit notes on the assessee-company to transfer the price difference. The said difference, going by the nature thereof, was adjusted by the assessee-company in the books of account against sales and the authorities below, in our opinion, were not justified to doubt the genuineness of the debit/credit notes on the basis of this accounting treatment given by the assessee-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, therefore, was not warranted. It was also contended that the said advances had become doubtful as clearly stated in the balance-sheet and, therefore, there was no question of charging any interest on the said advances. This explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. He noted that the assessee-company on one hand paid interest @ 12 to 18% on the money borrowed and on the other hand the advances were given without any interest. He accordingly worked out the interest attributable to the said advances by applying the rate of 12% at Rs.1,45,18,708/- and made disallowance to that extent under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 25. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and the following submission was made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest was not sustainable. "8.1 The Assessing Officer has stated that the appellant had given advances to 13 parties of the aggregate amount of Rs.12,09, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset 'for extension of existing business of profession (whether capitalised in the books of account or not); for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction." Thus, as per said section 36(1)(iii), for allowance of a claim for deduction of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed is that following three conditions should be fulfilled. (i) The Assessee must have borrowed money (ii) The interest should have been payable (iii) Borrowing should be made for the purpose of business. Once these three conditions are satisfied the claim of interest payment simply cannot be rejected. In the present case the assessing officer has presumed that advances made to the 13 parties are for other than business purpose and on such assumption made impugned addition of interest without appreciating the circumstantial evidences. Here it would not be out of place to go into the various judicial decisions establishing the ratios for the purpose of allowing deduction for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opers, and NG Patel group entities were with reference to the advances given to them long back for the purchase of property. However, due to some disputes the properties could not be acquired and even the said funds could not be recovered. Hence, such balances are doubtful. As stated above, the funds were given for business purpose and hence having regard to the decision of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) no disallowance is justified. It may be noted that this balances are outstanding even in the earlier years and no adverse view has been taken by the Department. As no new facts are arisen in this year, considering the consistency required also the disallowance is not justified." 26. The learned CIT(A) did not find merit in the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this issue and proceeded to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest for the following reasons given in paragraph No. 9.2 of his impugned order:- "9.2 I have carefully considered the rival contentions, observation of the A.O as well as the case law relied upon by the appellant. It is observed that the A.O has made an addition of Rs, 1,45,18,708/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in [1991] 59 Taxman 439 (Kar.), wherein it was held that since no additions had been made in earlier years, the opening debit balance could not be considered for making disallowance in the current year. 28. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in support of Revenue's case on this issue. 29. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate its claim that the advances in question were given for the purposes of business. He has also not furnished any details or given any reasons as to why the recovery of these advances had become doubtful as claimed. Since the business purpose of giving these advances was not established by the assessee on evidence, we are of the view that it was a clear case of diversion of interest bearing loans for non-business purpose and disallowance on account of interest attributable to the said advances was rightly made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Ground No.6 of the assessee's appeal is accordingly dismissed. 30. As regards the issue raised in Ground No.7, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantially utilized for making payments of corresponding purchases. It was also contended that even though the transactions were paper transactions, yet the payments for the purchases were made and receipts for the same were received by account payee cheques which were duly reflected in the bank account. This submission of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, all the NSEL transactions were of the same colour and nature and when the other transactions were settled through journal entries, there was no justifiable reason for the assessee to have received the amount of Rs.244.98 crores in question by cheques against the NSEL transactions of sale as claimed by it which by assessee's own admission were only paper transactions. He held that the assessee-company had never dealt with any goods through physical delivery as far as transactions on NSEL are concerned; and, therefore, its claim of having received a huge amount in question against the paper transactions without making any sales to anyone was not acceptable. He accordingly treated the amount of Rs.244.98 crores in question as unexplained cash credit and made addition to that extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .935 crores referred to by the officials, the group had actually received and utilized Rs.275 crores from NSEL through Settlement Account over the period of years, the details of which were submitted by him. The amount so received from the settlement was broadly explained by him. ii) The Assessing Officer states that as per the explanation of Nilesh Patel the amount was utilized for expansion/capital expenditure of NKPL, towards capital expenditure of NKIL and towards joint venture with Adani Wilmar Ltd. The Assessing Officer states that the appellant had not given fund flow statement before the AO in the post-survey proceedings. It is stated by him that during the course of post-survey proceedings, the appellant had altered the explanation as above and it was found that the funds so withdrawn are utilized for the purpose of payment to the suppliers and for the purpose of incurring expenditure. It is stated by the AO that the appellant had given the statement of use of funds from the books of NKIL, Tirupati Proteins. The AO has again referred to liability of the group company to NSEL at Rs.384 crores as against the claim by NSEL of Rs.969 crores. The appellant had explained b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform of NSEL, say for sale of 100 kg of castor oil to another client of another broker of NSEL for Rs. 100 per kg. II) The other prospective client/ investor referred to above who has purchased the quantity as above executes another transaction on NSEL for sale of said quantity on T+36 contract on the electronic platform whereby it sells entire quantity purchased as above to another client of NK Proteins (say NK Corporation) for Rs.110 per kg. III) NK Corporation carry out Intra group sale of same quantity to NK Inds., say for Rs.112 per kg. Thus, the entire quantity is set off for purchase of sale in the hands of each of the party. IV) NKIL on the first sale receives the sale consideration within 3 days i.e. on settlement of T+3 contract. As against this, NK Corporation makes payment for purchase made by it under T+36 contract from the purchasing party of NKIL and it has to pay on the settlement date, after 36 days. The assessee pays to NK Corporation the purchase consideration on the expiry of T+36 contract. V) Similar contracts are being entered into and the funds are received as per T+3 contract which are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent made by NKPL to NSEL Settlement A/c. during the year which also includes the funds received from NKC. During the year under consideration, they have made payment of Rs. 134.01 crores to NSEL Settlement A/c from their bank account. 3.2 The above 3 charts are verified with reference to bank statement of the assessee, of NKC and of NKPL. The figures stated hereinabove in the chart are found to be correct. 4. During the course of remand proceedings, the assessee has further stated that they have received the funds of Rs.244.98 crores from NKPL-NSEL Client Account and they have made payment of Rs. 192.97crores as stated hereinabove to NKC and that therefore, there is credit balance of NKC in balance sheet of the assessee as at the close of the year. Against this credit balance in the subsequent year they have made payment to NKC. This fact is verified from the records that there is a credit balance of NKC in the books of the assessee which assessee has made payment in the subsequent year. However, the fact remains that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made payment to NKC of Rs. 192.97 crores only and balance amount has not been utilized for payment against p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived by appellant against the sales and it has to make payment against the purchases. The Assessing Officer has now considered this fact in para 2 of the Remand Report, and in para 3.1 and 3.2 of the Remand Report, it is stated under:- "3.1 The transactions so entered into were to raise temporary funds. However, there was no co-relation of sales and amount transferred from NKPL client A/c to the assessee's bank account. The assessee has explained that in the above trade cycle, the assessee has to make payment to NKC from whom they have made the purchases in the trade cycle. The amount has been paid against the sales made through NKPL as broker in NSEL and against that amount NSEL had made payment in the Settlement Account of NKPL and from that account NKPL has transferred the funds to NSEL Client A/c and from such account the assessee has received funds. The assessee has further stated that A as observed by the Auditor against the amount of Rs.244.98 crores received from NKPL Client A/c they have paid Rs.205.86 crores to NKC from whom they have made purchases as reported in the Special Audit Report. Thus, it is stated that the funds are received on account of sales and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r payment to NKC against the purchases in the trade cycle. Accordingly, there was no justification for the addition made on this account. It may be noticed that the Assessing Officer has, however, observed that during the year under consideration the assessee made payment to NKC of Rs. 192.97 crores only and balance amount is not utilized for payment against the purchases. However, as accepted by him, the appellant has recognized balance amount payable to NKC in the books and also such balance amount has been paid in the subsequent year. Accordingly, this observation in the Remand Report that only Rs. 192.97 crores have been paid to NKC during the year may please be considered in the light of the subsequent payment. Thus, entire amount of Rs. 244 crores is paid to NKC and, therefore, the addition for the entire amount of Rs. 244.98 crores may please be deleted." 31.4 After considering the entire material available on record including the submission made by the assessee, the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder made by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) decided the issue vide paragraph no. 12. 3 of his impugned order as under:- "12.3 The A.O has obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4 of the assessment order to point out that this balance amount was repaid by the assessee-company in the subsequent year and the same, therefore, is liable to be deleted going by the basis on which addition was partly deleted by the learned CIT(A) himself. He contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash was partly sustained by the learned CIT(A) on the ground that there was no obligation for the assessee-company to repay the said amount. He contended that this basis itself is wrong and the fact that the balance amount was also paid by the assessee-company in the subsequent year is sufficient to establish that there was an obligation on the assessee-company to repay the said amount. 33. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in support of the Revenue's case on this issue. 34. We have heard both the sides and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the amount of Rs.244.98 crores received by the assessee-company from NSEL client against sale was substantially paid towards the purchases made. Since such payment to the extent of Rs.192.97 crores was made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of trading with related parties is nongenuine and speculative in nature. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.13,30,35,616/- on account of debit note received from N.K. Proteins Ltd. treating the same as unexplained expenditure. The impugned addition deserves to be deleted. [**]6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66 crores made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and the same is not warranted. 7. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.7,34,404/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned addition deserves to be deleted. 37. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal; the same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 38. As regards the issue raised in Ground No.3, it is observed that the issue involved t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Group Concerns is incorrect. On perusal of the details, it will be noticed that there are outside parties - Rajiv Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd and C.K.Shah Marketing Pvt. Ltd are also involved. 2.2 Now, it is submitted that every industry has its own market dynamics and it is best left to the businessman to take policy decisions. The business man is required to take certain business decisions, the outcome of which may be different in future. Moreover, the business man does not have control over the market fluctuations. He might not be aware that the transactions undertaken once would result into loss in future. Notwithstanding the above, there was nothing to be gained by diverting the profits of the assessee company to another company, since both are resident taxpaying companies are taxable at maximum marginal rate and there is no fax planning or tax avoidance. Even otherwise, in case your good selves are desirous to take adverse view then also, there would be no ultimate benefit to the revenue authorities as in case of the assessee, only loss to a certain extent would be reduced in case of the assessee company and there would still be loss and hence no taxable income would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Losses in transaction A-B (-)57,00,456 Group concerns Qty.(Kg) Rate Amount Purchase Parties(Group) Tirupati Proteins Pvt. Ltd. 10500000 721 757050000 N.K. Corporation 9000000 720 648000000 Total purchase= (A) 19500000 1405050000 Sales parties (Group) N.K. Corporation 10500000 590 619500000 N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd. 9000000 650 585000000 Total sales =(B) 19500000 1204500000 (-)20,0550,000 4.2 In reply to above proposal of the Assessing Officer, it was specifically explained by the appellant that in so far as caster seeds purchase and sale is concerned, there are transactions with other than group concerns also, and that therefore, the observation that the transactions are duly with group concerns was incorrect. It was also explained before the Assessing Officer that the transactions were taken at the market rate and the price fluctuation depends on market dynamics. It was the business decision to enter into such transactions and the appellant had no control over the market fluctuations taking place. It was also explained before the AO that there was no intention of diversion of profit by the assessee company since both the conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the ground that it is with group concern and further on presumption basis that it is diversion of income is totally unjustified and unwarranted. In connection with this contention, the appellant relies upon the following cases:- i) "Reference is drawn towards the decision of Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline (Asia) reported in 195 Taxman 35. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not have any employee other than a company secretary and all administrative services relating to marketing, finance, HR etc were provided by Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd ("GSKCH") pursuant to an agreement under which the assesses agreed to reimburse the costs incurred by GSKCH for providing the various services plus 5%. The costs towards services provided to the assessee were allocated on the basis suggested by a firm of CAs. The AO disallowed a part of the charges reimbursed on the ground that they were excessive and not for business purposes which was upheld by the CIT (A). However, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance on the ground that there was provision to disallow expenditure on the ground that it was excessive or unreasonable unless the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany on this issue and proceeded to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loss in question as speculative loss instead of trading loss for the following reasons given in paragraph Nos. 9.2 to 9.2.1 of his impugned order:- "9.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order, remand report of the Assessing Officer, rejoinder, facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The AO made the impugned addition after a detailed discussion in his order which is reproduced above. It was held by him that the appellant was not able to furnish any evidence which could prove that sales and purchases with its sister concern had actually taken place on which the appellant had claimed trading losses. It is an undisputed fact that transactions of various commodities were concluded by the appellant and its group concerns without actual physical delivery and therefore the issue being covered by Section 43(5) read with Section 73 of the Act as being speculative los and was disallowed by the AO. The appellant on the other hand claimed that it had also entered into transaction with concerns other than its group concerns which were not related parties. 9.2.1 It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question were made at the prevailing market price and it was not a case where the goods purchased at higher rate were sold by the assessee-company at lower rate in order to claim trading loss. 43. As regards Ground No.5 raised by the assessee in this appeal, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of assessee's claim for deduction towards debit notes raised by N.K. Proteins Limited is similar to the issue raised in Ground No.5 of the appeal filed in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. (supra) being ITA No.329/Ahd/2017. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as the arguments of both the sides are similar to the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. (supra) ,we follow our conclusion drawn in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. (supra) and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 5 of assessee's appeal is accordingly allowed. 44. As regards Ground No.6, it is observed that the issue raised therein relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act and confirmed by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition deserves to be deleted. 5. In law2 and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,04,63,344/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained sales. The impugned addition deserves to be deleted. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,04,170/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of cash credit and the same deserves to be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,17,346/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. The impugned addition deserves to be deleted. 48. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal; the same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 49. As regard the issue involved in Ground No.3 relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, it is observed that the amount of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards Ground No.4 of this appeal relating to the addition of Rs.59.70 crores made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of non-genuine purchases, the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee had undertaken transactions of Cotton Wash Oil (CWO) on NSEL platform through its Member M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. As pointed out in the Special Audit Report, the assessee-company had shown purchases of CWO amounting to Rs.59.70 crores -more than the sales shown by NKPL. When this difference was pointed out by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, following explanation was offered by the assessee in writing:- "2. It is stated that there is a difference between the sales made by NKPL and purchase by TPPL as per the chart to the extent of RS. 59.70 Crore. In fact, there is no difference as is seen from the quantity tally as per books of TPPL and NKPL reproduced below: Purchases M.Tons Amount Rs. In Crore Sales M.Tons Amount of Rs. in Crore Purchase from NSEL through NKPL 249737.98 1290.73 Sales to NSEL Parties 259917.98 1350.43 Purchase from NKPL 10180.00 59.70 Total: 259917.98 1350.43 Total: 259917.98 1350.43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn excess purchase ofRs.59.70crores. He has referred to the Auditors report wherein question about this difference was raised and the appellant's reply to the Auditors is also referred to by the AO. It is stated by the AO that in view of the above show cause notice was issued proposing to make the addition ofRs.59.70 crores on account of such difference. 6.2 The appellant had in response to such notice, explained that the purchases from NKPL through NSEL platform was of 24,97,37,981 Kgs that further purchase of 10,180 MT was in respect of physical purchase. This stock was sold to NSEL parties through NKPL on NSEL platform. It was explained that thus the sales to NSEL parties is also m the same quantity of 25,99,17,979. Thus, there was no difference. The appellant had also explained that the sales of 10,180 MT was made to different parties, details of which were given and are reproduced on page 21 of the assessment order. 6.3 The appellant had before the AO explained that this 10,180 MT was sold in physical form and that the stock so sold was lying with Rajkot Lodhika Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh at Rajkot, wherein they have confirmed chat this physical delivery was received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut payment, the appellant had explained that the actual payment has been received against the sales by way of obligation report and payment by way of cheque from NSEL Client A/c of NKPL. The details submitted by the assessee in this regard are not accepted by the AO on the ground that the appellant has credited amount to the account IBMA in its books of account out of the total payment of Rs.108.97 crores received. The appellant had provided copy of account of IBMA from its bocks of account reflecting the payment received. It is stated by the AO that the assessee has not received any other amount from NSEL Client A/c. other than Rs.108.97 crones and it is further stated that the assesses cannot credit the account of IBMA for payment received from and on behalf of other parties. Therefore, the submission of the assessee about payment received from various parties is not accepted. vii) The Certificate from Rajkot Lodhika Sahkar Kharid-Vechan Sangh to support delivery of goods filed with AO which is referred to earlier, is also not held to be reliable on the ground that it does not mention the tank number against the stock lying for cotton wash oil und, that the particulars of wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. ii) Apart from the above, the appellant may refer to the Annual Accounts for the year which separately shows opening stock, sale & purchase as also closing stock of cotton wash oil which includes the transaction of NSEL by way of trade cycle and also the transaction of physical delivery. If there was only transaction of trade cycle, there cannot be any stock. Further, the stock (opening) purchase and sales also stock (closing) quantity gets reconciled. Thus, there is no excess purchase booked by the company. iii) Apart from the above, the appellant may submit the copies of documents by way of confirmation from NKPL. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, the Assessing Officer has incorrectly made the addition for the alleged excess purchase shown by the appellant from NKPL, which is based on assumption that on NSEL the sales made are without delivery. The addition so made deserves to be deleted." 50.3 The learned CIT(A) did not find merit in the submission made by the assessee and proceeded to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged non-genuine purchases for the following reasons given in paragraph N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts of the case and in the absence of any proof of delivery by the appellant, it is clear that the excess purchases of Rs.59,69,58,528/- shown by the appellant was a non genuine transaction, and the addition of addition of Rs.59,69,58,528/- made by the AO on this account is therefore confirmed. Ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed." 51. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the genuineness of purchases in question amounting to Rs.59.70 crores was doubted by the authorities below, but the corresponding sales made out of the said purchases were accepted by them. He invited our attention to the details of such purchases and corresponding sales given at page nos. 197 & 198 of the paper-book respectively and submitted that the corresponding sales made by the assessee-company out of purchases in question were duly supported by documentary evidence in the form of relevant invoices - copies of which are placed at page nos. 199 to 240 of the paper-book. He contended that when the corresponding sales duly accounted for by the assessee-company were accepted by the authorities below, there was no justification on their part to doubt the genuineness of the purchases from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of alleged unexplained sales, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said sales treated as unexplained by the authorities below were duly accounted for by the assessee-company in its books of account. He contended that the addition of the same again by treating the same as unexplained by the authorities below has clearly resulted in double addition. The learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that this claim of the assessee specifically made for the first time before the Tribunal requires verification by the Assessing Officer. We find merit in this contention of the learned DR and since the learned Counsel for the assessee has also no objection for such verification being done by the Assessing Officer, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the sales in question treated as unexplained was already accounted for by the assessee-company in its books of account. Ground No.5 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 55. As regard the issue raised in Ground No.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e result, all the four appeals of the assessee(s) are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.11.2022 at Ahmedabad. C O R R I G E N D U M Order dated 23-12-2022 PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed an application dated 17.11.2022 pointing out a typographical error, apparent from the record, crept in on paragraph No.36 of page No.53 of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by "B" Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.1211/Ahd/2018 for AY 2012-13 in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. 2. It is pleaded in the application that a typographical error has been crept in on page No.53, in paragraph No.36, of the Tribunal order dated 16.11.2022 while mentioning the amount of disputed addition in the ground of appeal, i.e. Ground No.6, wherein it has been wrongly typed as Rs.66 crores instead of Rs.85 crores. In support of the same, learned Counsel for the assessee has placed on record copy of Form No. 36 filed by the assessee in ITA No.1211/Ahd/2018 and submitted that the order may be modified rectifying the aforesaid mistake. 3. We find that there was indeed a typographical mistake crept in on page No.53, in paragraph No.36, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
