No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
आदेश / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been directed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 9, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 28/03/2015 arising in the assessment order dated 07.11.2013 passed under section 143(3) of the
ITA No.1431Ahd/2015 S.A.L. Steel Ltd. vs. ITO, Wd-4(1)(1) Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 2 - Act. The assessee has also filed cross objection supporting the action of the CIT(A).
The Revenue has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 92,04,000/- made by the AO with the aid of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
With the assistance of the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue we find that the assessee has given certain advances to six parties as named in the orders of the authorities below aggregating to above Rs. 767.00 lakhs. All the aforestated advances were given in earlier years thus have been brought forward from the earlier years. It is inter alia the case of the assessee that its holds own funds by way of share capital combined with with reserve and surplus aggregating to about Rs. 12564.00 lakhs which far exceeds, the corresponding interest free advances.
On these facts, we take note of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case concerning 2009-10 & 2010-11 in ITA No. 2013/Ahd/2013 and ors order dated 18.01.2017 where in the similar facts, the relief was granted to the assessee and no justification was found in resorting to disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
ITA No.1431Ahd/2015 S.A.L. Steel Ltd. vs. ITO, Wd-4(1)(1) Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 3 - 5. In view of the fact that interest free own funds are far in excess of interest free advances, it is difficult to draw presumption adverse to the assessee. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of interest. We therefore decline to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A).
Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
The cross objection of the assessee merely supports the action of the CIT(A). In the absence of any substantive objection of the assessee emanating from the order of the CIT(A), the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2018
Sd/- Sd/- (एस.एस.गोदारा) (�द�प कुमार के�डया) �या�यक सद�य लेखा सद�य ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/01/2018