9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and more so, when the payment for land has been accepted by the Revenue in earlier years and in subsequent years, a different view in isolation is not called for. Following the principle of consistency, we are of the view that invocation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act is not called for. Enhancement of income by CIT(A) - contention of Revenue that the Term Loan which was obtained by the assessee in earlier years was claimed as application of money and therefore the claim of repayment of Term Loan as application of income would amount to double claim - HELD THAT:- Before us, the assessee submitted that the Term Loans were restricted as application of income and in support of which he also pointed to the comparative chart placed. The chart 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground of appeal assailing the failure on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer to consider the fact that the amount advanced for purchase of land was not claimed in the computation of income as "application of income towards its objects". 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground of appeal assailing incorrect treatment of advance for purchase of land given by the Ld. Assessing Officer as 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cr in FY 2012-13 and Rs. 4.24 Cr in FY 2013-14 to the assessment year under consideration. During the year fresh amount of Rs. 1,09,00,000/- has been made. The advance has been made ostensibly for purchase of land for which there is neither any reliable evidence nor any land has been purchased even on this date of writing this order even after lapse of 7 years when the first amount was given. It has been stated that land in question was own by one lady Kunti Bai. However, the advance has been given to her only partly. Out of Rs. 4.24 Cr shown as advance, Rs. 2.15 Cr has been shown to be paid to Kunti Bai and Rs. 2.09 Cr has been shown to paid to certain Md. Sakir. When the land is owned by Kunti Bai, for what purpose Rs. 2.09 Cr has been paid to Md. Sakir. In any case the whole affair is very merky as no registration has been made so far. Thus, the investment is not only not as per the provisions of Section 11(5) but is also a violation of Section 13(1)(d). The amount will therefore be treated as income by the AO and the same is sustained." 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 1,13,65,809/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is now before us. 10. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and further submitted that as per regular practice, the assessee credited the amounts paid to seller into the account "Advance for Purchase of Land A/c" but did not made any claim as "application of income". Only the "repayment of loan" was claimed as application of income and for which reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
