Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), dated 25.11.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore is justified in holding that the disallowance of interest u/s 43B will lead to double disallowance whereas the addition were made to loss declared in original return and not to the
M/s. Agarwal Indotex Ltd.
revised computation and this disallowance is not related to loan to M/s Agrawal Polyfils Pvt. Ltd. and interest disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) whereas the assessee has failed to prove that the loans to M/s Agrawal Polyfils Pvt. Ltd. was given for business purpose. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal. ” 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called referred as the ‘Act’) was framed vide order dated 29th February 2016. During the course of assessment proceedings vide notice dated 14.12.2015 called upon the assessee to furnish the details of interest expenses. The AO, therefore, disallowed the expenditure of Rs.1,07,84,349/- and interest thereon @ 12% of Rs.93,64,195/- and added to the income of the assessee. Against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, he deleted the additions. Against this the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Apropos to Ground Nos. 1 and 2 the Ld. DR supported the assessment order. On the contrary the Ld. counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 4. Ground No.1 is against disallowance of interest u/s 43B of the Act of Rs.1,07,84,349/-. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact in para 5 of his order as under:
M/s. Agarwal Indotex Ltd.
“These grounds of appeal are related to disallowance of Rs.1,07,84,349/- u/s 43B. The appellant has submitted before me that it had voluntarily revised its income tax return for the assessment year in question and had already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,07,84,349/- u/s 43B of the Act. Since, the interest has already been disallowed by the appellant, I am inclined to agree with the submission of the appellant that disallowing the same under different section namely 36(1)(iii) will lead to double disallowance of the same expense. Accordingly, I find merit in the submission of the appellant and delete the addition so made of Rs.1,07,84,349/-. These grounds of appeal are allowed.”
The above finding on fact is not controverted by Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. As the assessee has already disallowed the expenditure by revising its income tax return, we, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Thus, ground no.1 of this appeal is rejected. 6. Now coming to ground no.2: The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue raised in the ground has been decided against the Revenue by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 has observed as under: “4.1 I have carefully gone through the submission made by the appellant as well as the assessment order. It has been brought to my notice that Honourable I.T.A.T. Indore Bench, Indore vide order in ITANo. 693/Ind/2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 order dated. 19 Sep. 2014 reported in (2014) 24 ITJ 489 (Trib-Indore) has in the similar facts and circumstance had deleted the entire addition made on identical grounds in the appellant’s own case, a copy of the same has also been produced and have been perused by me. Respectfully following the order of the Jurisdictional Bench of I.T.A.T., I hereby deleted the addition so made. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
M/s. Agarwal Indotex Ltd.
Since the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal on this issue. The Revenue has not pointed out any other binding precedent by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, 8. Ground No.3 is general in nature need not separate adjudication. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo.143/Ind/2017 is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 21 .03.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Indore; �दनांक Dated : 21/ 03/2018 ctàxÄ? P.S/.�न.स.
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore