9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -vis form 26AS - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- From the preceding discussion, we note that the income of Rs. 49,63,600/- has been offered to tax in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and thus, if any addition is made in the year under consideration than it will lead to the double addition which is unwarranted under the provision of law. Thus, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A), has rightly directed the AO to delete the addition made by him after necessary verification. Thus, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Suppression of income - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We note that the claim of the assesse was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), after carrying out the necessary verification as discussed above. Admittedly, if the income has been offered to tax for Rs. 57,40,491/- then the assessee can claim the bad debts under the provision of section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Likewise, if the income has been debited in the name of Larsen Turbo for Rs.35,53,900/-, then there is no un-reported of income as alleged by the AO. Nevertheless, the Ld.CIT(A), has given relief to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Disallowance of interest made u/s. 36(l)(iii) of the IT Act amounting to Rs.33,75,921 2) Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the Addition of Rs. 52,58,144/- made on account of reconciliation of income in 26AS with that of Profit and loss account. 3) Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the Addition of Rs. 25,18,460/- and Rs. 35,53,900/- made on account of disputed transaction with Larsen Tubro and TDS made from payment to Meka Dredging Pvt. Ltd. 4) Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the Addition of Rs. 68,694/- made on account of cessation of liability. 5) Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the Addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- made u/s. 41(1) of the IT Act. 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33,75,921/- being the amount of interest attributable on the diversion of loan fund. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a Limited company and engaged in the business of providing Dredger and other Infrastructure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of Rs.33,75,921/- made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(iii) is deleted. Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the interest was disallowed by the AO on the reasoning that there was diversion of interest bearing fund for non-commercial purposes. Admittedly, the interest free fund available with the assessee exceeds the amount of interest free advances which can be verified from the submission of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). the relevant extract is reproduced as under: 2.4 The Appellant was having sufficient interest free funds and accordingly no interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is justified: The Appellant states that total interest free funds as on 31/03/2012 were in excess of interest free advances hence there should not be any disallowance without indicating any instances of utilization of interest bearing funds for g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Dredging Infrastructure Limited has claimed service expenses on provisional basis in the year under consideration though there was no income accrued to it (the assesse) from the party. As such the assesse has offered the income from the M/s Dharti Dredging Infrastructure Limited in the subsequent assessment year. However, the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee failed to file the confirmation from M/s Dharti Dredging Infrastructure to justify that such expenses were claimed on provisional basis. The AO further observed that under the Mercantile System of Accounting the income has to be accounted in the year in which the services were rendered. There was no submission from the assessee that it has not rendered services to the party in the year under consideration. Therefore, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). 12. The assessee before the Ld.CIT(A), has filed the reconciliation statement placed on page 9 of Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it was demonstrated that the income to the tune of Rs. 49,63,500/- has been booked in the Financial Year 2012-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35,53,900.00 on account of suppression of income. 18. The AO during the Assessment proceedings found that the assessee has reduced its income in the profit and loss account by the amount of Rs. 57,40,491/- only. It was contended by the assessee that there was invoice raised in the name of M/s Meka Dredging Pvt Ltd. in the earlier year but the same was reversed in the year under consideration. Finally, the profit and loss account was credited by sum of Rs. 32,22,031.00 by issuing the invoice in the name of M/s Larsen Turbo as full and final settlement. However, the AO was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee by observing that there was a difference of Rs. 25,18,460 (Rs. 5740491- Rs. 32,22,031) which has not been justified/explained based on the documentary evidence. Thus, the AO treated the same as income of the assessee and added the sum of Rs. 25,18,460/- to the total income. 18.1 Likewise, the AO found that as per the form 26AS, the assessee has received an income of Rs. 35,53,900.00 from the company namely M/s Meka Dredging Pvt Ltd. which has not been shown in the profit and loss account of the assessee. Thus, the AO concluded that the assessee has unreport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bo, during the year under consideration. The AO is directed to verify this fact. The grounds of appeal Nos.5 6 are allowed, subject to verification by the AO. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 22. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 23. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the claim of the assesse was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), after carrying out the necessary verification as discussed above. Admittedly, if the income has been offered to tax for Rs. 57,40,491/- then the assessee can claim the bad debts under the provision of section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Likewise, if the income has been debited in the name of Larsen Turbo for Rs.35,53,900/-, then there is no un-reported of income as alleged by the AO. Nevertheless, the Ld.CIT(A), has given relief to the assessee subject to the necessary verification to be done by the AO. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), and uphold the same. Hence, the ground of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before us. 29. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 30. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As far as cessation of liability is concern for Rs. 42,470/-, we note that the assessee has not disputed for the same and therefore the same represent the cessation of liability and therefore the same is liable to be added. As regard to difference in the opening balance of Rs.15,994/- pertaining to the earlier year, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed deduction to the assessee subject to the necessary verification to be done by the AO. We find no infirmity in the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). However, we find that the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.68,994/- in the ground of appeal which to our understanding is not correct. It is for the reason that the Ld. CIT(A), has not given any relief to the assessee with respect to the cessation of liability of Rs.42,470/- as the same has been confirmed. Thus, there should not be any grievance to the Revenue with respect to such addition. Thus, the ground of appeal of the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
