Sh. Hanuman Prasad Goyal, Bikaner vs. ITO, Suratgarh
In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed
ITA 151/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.
For Appellant: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 402
…(1980) 18 CTR (Del) 295, CIT v Indo Kopp Ltd (2008) 167 Taxman 172 (Del), C I T v R a m L a l R a j a r a m ( 1 9 9 9 ) 1 5 7 C T R ( A l l ) 1 1 9 , M a d h a v P r a s a d J a t i a v C I T ( 1 9 7 9 ) 1 0 C T R ( S C ) 3 7 5 and CIT v Bombay samachar Ltd (74 ITR 723) (Bom). 9. After careful analysis of the orders passed by the authorities below and the arguments advanced by the assessee, we are of the view that while making the additions, the A.O. had merely relied upon the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 288 ITR 1 and Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs CIT 324 ITR 396 (Del). However…
