2015 (7) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....convenience. 2. In ITA No. 845/Ahd/2011, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds: "1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO as income u/s.2(24) r.w.s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, holding that remission of unsecured loans could not be subjected to tax by invoking section 28(iv) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above, since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income." 2.1 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- being amount written off since not payable on the ground that same was trading receipt in as much as it i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s stated above. Since assessee is carrying on sharafi business and has received loan in course of business. In appeal, CIT(A) observed that assessee did not carry on sharafi business. The observation of Assessing Officer in assessment order is only a casual observation without adducing any evidence. Sharafi business means the assessee accepts the deposits from public and lends to public. In present case, assessee has not accepted any deposit from public and has not lent through public. Certain deposits are accepted from relatives and they are utilized for the purpose of carrying on business for shares and securities. Therefore, it was found that assessee does not carry on sharafi business and therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elief to the Assessee has given a finding that the Assessee was not carrying on the business of obtaining loans and therefore the remission of loan cannot be considered to be a benefit arising out from the business. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the Assessee had relied on the decisions cited therein and also the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 267 ITR 770. Before us, Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor could point any distinguishable feature of the decisions relied by A.R. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed." 3. Facts being similar, so ....