ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Duncans Industries Ltd. has been brought to our notice that both the issues are covered in favour of assessee by the Tribunal’s order.

“I have considered the submissions of the authorized representative of the appellant as well as the assessment order framed in the light of the materials available on record before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AR of the appellate has submitted that similar disallowance was made by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, which was confirmed by the C1T(A). On appeal before the ITAT, the entire expenses were allowed as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the Appellant. The relevant 1412/Kol/2003. Copy of the aforesaid order is enclosed. In the appeal order dated 28-02- 2008 for the assessment year 2002-03 in appeal no.42/CIT(A)-IV/05-06, similar disallowance made was deleted. In the appellate order dated 24/08/2017 passed by the undersigned for the assessment year 2010-11 in Appeal Case No. 1264/CIT (A)-2/2014- 15 similar disallowance made in the assessment was deleted. In view of above, by following the decision of ITAT and undersigned in the appellate own case, the AO is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1412/Kol/2003 by order dated 28.02.2009 (AY 1999-2000). Since the Ld. DR could not point out any difference in facts or law, so we find no infirmity in this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed.

5. Ground no. 2 is on the issue of taxability of notional income on loans advanced. The Ld. CIT(A) at page 6 of his order held as follows:

I have considered the submissions of the authorized representative of the appellant as well as the assessment order framed in the light of the materials available on record before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AR of the appellate has submitted that in the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02, the learned Assessing Officer had disallowed similar amounts out of interest expenses incurred by the Appellant. The CIT (A) in his order had stated that such disallowance should not be made out of interest expenses, but the interest should be assessed on notional basis under ‘other source . On appeal before the ITAT, at the instance of the assessee, the decision of the CIT (A] was reversed and it was held that no amount can be treated as notional interest in a case where interest has not been charged by the assessee. In the appellate

Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Duncans Industries Ltd. order dated 24/08/2017 passed by undersigned for the assessment year 2010-11 in Appeal No. 1264/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 similar addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3] was directed to be deleted following the decision of the ITAT "E” Bench in for the assessment year 2001-02. The facts for this assessment year are similar. In view of above, by following the decision of ITAT and undersigned in the appellate own case, the AO is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

6. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 980/Kol/2005 for AY 2001-02 which order has been relied by the Ld. CIT(A) to give relief to the assessee. Since there is no change of facts or law, we find no infirmity in this order of the Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. Accordingly ground no. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed.

7. Ground no. 3 is general in nature.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 22 November, 2019.