Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.4970/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2013-2014 M/s. Hotz Industries, 703-706, Chiranjiv Tower, The DCIT, vs. 43, Nehru Place, Circle – 11 (1), New Delhi – 110 019. New Delhi. PAN AAACH0092G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jashpal Singh Sethi, CA For Revenue : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi, Dated 12.08.2016, for the A.Y. 2013-2014.
I have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material on record.
2 ITA.No.4970/Del./2016 M/s. Hotz Industries, New Delhi. 3. Earlier, this appeal of assessee were dismissed for default, however, the M.A. of the assessee was allowed and appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merits. In this appeal, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.3,86,362/- on account of interest.
The A.O. noted that the assessee company has advanced a sum of Rs.32.85 crores to its subsidiary company, but, did not charge interest on this advance, where as, the assessee company taken loan from its holding company and claimed interest of Rs.3,86,362/-. The A.O. issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the interest of Rs.3,86,362/- on diverted funds to its subsidiary company be not disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. In response to the notice, the Counsel for the assessee company agreed for the disallowance of Rs.3,86,362/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) following his Order for A.Y. 2010-2011 dismissed the appeal of assessee.
3 ITA.No.4970/Del./2016 M/s. Hotz Industries, New Delhi.
After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed. In this case, assessee company agreed for the impugned addition of Rs.3,86,362/-. It is well settled Law that no appeal lies to the appellate authorities on agreed additions. I rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax [1967] 65 ITR 261 (Bom.), Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vamadevan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Kerala) and Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 129 ITR 239 (P&H). In this case though the assessment order has been passed on 12.02.2016 when Counsel for Assessee agreed for addition, the assessee did not take any steps to see if any wrong statement have been recorded by the A.O. In the absence of any contrary material on record, it is clearly established that assessee agreed for the impugned addition. Therefore, appeal of assessee is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
4 ITA.No.4970/Del./2016 M/s. Hotz Industries, New Delhi.
In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.