RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

order

: 26-August-2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

II. FOR THAT the purported action of the Learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,61,886/- on account of purported finding that the assessee had charged interest @4.79% on the loan given on the basis of method of calculation of average rate of interest which was absolutely arbitrary even though the appellant had given full details regarding the loans which were taken by the appellant and the loans which were given by the appellant including the rate of interest charged on such loans and as such the impugned order of the Learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. III. FOR THAT the appellant having given loans out of his own funds available with him, the purported action of the Learned Assessment Unit as well as Learned CIT(A) in making addition of Rs. 89,61,886/- by disallowing the expenditure on account of purported interest expenditure is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. IV. FOR THAT the Learned CIT(A) arbitrarily held that the doctrine of real income applies in a limited segment of cases where the realty of the situation prevents the accrual of real income and such observation of the Learned CIT(A) is without any basis and the purported action of the Learned CIT(A) in confirming the purported action of the Learned Assessment Unit on the basis of the aforesaid observation is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. V. FOR THAT the Learned CIT(A) failed to decide the Ground No. 2 relating to error in charging interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act and such purported action of the Learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. VI. FOR THAT the Learned Assessment Unit be directed to charge the interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act on the basis of extended due date of filing of return instead of original due date of filing of return as per the law. VII. FOR THAT in passing the impugned order the Learned CIT(A) has acted by an outright refusal to consider relevant matters, has misdirected itself in points of law, has taken into account irrelevant considerations and has failed to take into account relevant materials on record. The said impugned order is arbitrary to that core and perverse. VIII. FOR THAT the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit are based on incorrect appreciation of the relevant statutory provisions and facts and materials on record and are contrary to law, untenable and unsustainable. The said