MORPHEUS HUMAN CONSULTING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5430/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 February 2016AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the contentions of both parties and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. All issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination with due consideration to assessee's explanations and case laws.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged additions for unexplained cash credit, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and disallowance under Section 40A(3). The original assessment was ex-parte, and the assessee provided details to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether additions for unexplained cash credit, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) are justified, considering the assessee's explanations and relevant case laws.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 40A(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 18.1.2016

स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAFCM2128M अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri D C Jain प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Navin Gupta सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 18.1.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement: 3. 2.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

Per B R Baskaran, AM:

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-17, Mumbai for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following issues: a) Addition of unexplained cash credit of 14,67,650/-; b) Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.3,35,120/-; and c) Disallowance made under section40(A)(3) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessment for the year under consideration was completed ex-pate by the AO u/s 144 of the Act.

However, the assessee furnished the details before the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the ld. CIT(A) called for the remand from the AO. In the remand order, the AO erroneously, took the view that the assessee had repaid a sum of Rs.4,26,794/- out of the loan amount of Rs.14,67,649/- and accordingly expressed the view that there is discrepancy in the accounts maintained by the assessee. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee did not repay the loan as presumed by the assessing officer. He further submitted that the assessee would be in a position to clarify the matter, if this issue is set aside to the file of the AO.

3.

With regard to the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V/s Five Star Shipping Agency (P) Ltd (2015) 66 (II) ITCL 431 (Kol “B” Trib) and submitted that the amendment brought in into section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 is curative in nature and accordingly, applicable to the year under consideration.

4.

With regard to the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had paid money for purchase of capital assets in the form of furniture and fittings and it has been held by the Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s Addl.CIT in IT A No.629/ Ahd/2010(AY-:2006-07) dated 06-07- 2012 that the payment made by way of cash in respect of capital expenditure shall not attract the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.

5.

On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that all these issues may be set aside to the file of the AO for examining the claim of the assessee.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →