9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as "the Act"). The assessee filed its return of income electronically for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income at nil. The case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2016 and the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,09,00,000/- .Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.03.2018 (in appeal No. 1031/16- 17)apart from dismissing the appeal of assessee also made an enhancement. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment u/s. 13(1)(d) and wrongly holding that it was made in contravention to the modes specified in Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal challenging validity of impugned order due to denial of opportunity by Ld. Assessing Officer before rejection of appellant's submissions. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in making enhancement of Rs. 1,13,65,809/- to the total income on account of purported double claim of exemption u/s .11(1)(a) of the Act by mis-constructing the fact and traveling beyond the scope of assessment order whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(d)(i) of the Act and he accordingly, brought it to tax. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of Assessing Officer by observing as under:- "2.3 Appellant has contended that the amount was advanced for purchase of land. As per Kabja Patra the rate of land is Rs. 40 Lakhs per acre whereas as per the minutes of meeting and resolution the rate is Rs. 70 Lakhs per acre. As per Kabja Patra Rs. 2.2 Crores has been paid to alleged seller whereas the amount shown in the books and added in the assessment order is Rs. 1.90 Crores. There are contradictions in the facts brought on record by the assessee. It has been stated that the advance was giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n subsequent years. The Revenue has not disputed the payments made by the assessee in earlier and subsequent years and only has made the addition in the year under consideration. He therefore submitted that when the issue is with respect to the advance of the same land, the view in isolation cannot be taken by the Revenue. He further pointed to the copies of agreement which are placed in the Paper Book and submitted that payment was for the purchase of land which was evident from the registered documents. He further relying on certain decisions submitted that the advance for purchase of land cannot be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of lower authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of income. 9. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has made a claim of Rs. 1,13,65,809/- towards repayment of Term Loan. He was of the view that the Term Loan obtained by the assessee was for the purpose of acquiring assets and the acquisition of assets has already been allowed as application of income and in such situation the repayment of Term Loan for the same assets would amount to double claim by the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee inter-alia, that the assets acquired out of Term Loan were never considered as application of income was not found acceptable to the CIT(A). He accordingly, held that the claim is double claim and thereby disallowed and directed the Assessing Officer to enhance income by Rs. 1,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt placed by the assessee in the Paper Book reveals that the assessee has not claimed the purchase of land from the loans as application of income. Before us, the Revenue has not controverted the submissions made by the assessee. We further find that CBDT in Circular No. 100 dated 24.01.1973 has held that repayment of loan originally taken to fulfill one of the objects was amount to application of income for charitable and religious purposes. Considering the totality of the facts, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was not justified in enhancing the income. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) on this ground. Thus, the ground No. 7 raised by assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed as indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
