TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.1. That the Ld Assessing Officer erred in law and on merits in not allowing the business expenses of Rs..12,14,379/- claimed as under and Ld CIT(A) further erred in allowing only Rs.. 1 lakh on ad hoc estimated basis as the corporate requirement essential to keep the corporate office running. Claimed as business expenses: Nature of Expenses Amount Bank charges. 25916/- Audit fees. 19000/- Preliminary expenses w/off. 6360/- Electricity & water expenses. 28760/- Insurance 25733/- Misc. expenses. 65501/- Telephone expenses. 44860/- Office Maintenance. 80760/- Salary 472800/- Printing & Stationery. 56766/- Repair & Maintenance 89990/- 916446.00 Claimed against income from house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest paid on loan in support of this claim of interest on loan. The Assessing Officer noted that interest was paid against term loan under Rent plus Scheme and interest was not for construction or acquisition of any house property. Therefore, the assessee was asked to file documents pertaining to house loan. In response to which the assessee filed loan sanctioned documents which were indeed against rent plus scheme. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs..20,72,611/- as being not related to construction or acquisition of any house property. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and submitted as under:- i) That Assessing Officer had wrongly held that no business activity was carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/- which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that loan has been granted against security of rent and not for the purpose of construction or renovation. iii) That the assessee took loan of Rs..60 lakhs from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBL) on 18.2.2004 for construction of property No.52, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. During the year the building was complete and it was earning rental income. However, loan taken for construction from SBBL was still outstanding to the extent of Rs..33,30,613/- when the assessee switched over the loan to SBI and was granted total loan of Rs. 2 crore against security of rent and one of the conditions of SBI was that assessee will clear the outstanding loan of SBBJ. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taken on 29.11.2005. In view of the above, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee could not justify its claim through documentary evidence and therefore, the appellant's claim of admissibility of interest of Rs..20,71,611/- was rejected. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. At the outset, the Ld AR argued that the case was decided by Ld CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity to assessee and Ld CIT(A) passed the appellate order on the basis of material already available in the file and on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee vide letter dated 17.8.2011 & 29.8.2011. He further argued that on various dates Ld AR could not appear for one reason or the other and within a short period of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e particulars of income and thereby concealing income." 10. The only reason assigned by the Assessing Officer is that reply of the assessee is not acceptable why it is not acceptable nowhere disclosed. It emerges out from the record that Ld CIT(A) has called for certain information and assessee was in the process of collecting those information. It has filed adjournment application. The copies of adjournment applications available at page 1 to 5 of the paper book, the applications have been sent through registered post also because the Ld first appellate authority refused to entertain them. According to the assessee sufficient opportunity of hearing was not provided by the ld first appellate authority also. In a way, the appeal has been ....