2016 (9) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng a sum of Rs. 1,840/- of sales tax demand. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 1,840/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing a sum of Rs. 4,36,455/- of interest paid to following NBFCs u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961 :- S.No. Name of Parties Amount (in Rs. 1. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 54,347/- 2. Cholamandalam DBS 69,170/- 3. Indiabulls Financial 3,12,938/-   Total : 4,36,455/-   The action of the ld.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AO in not considering the submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by considering the complete submissions and granting relief accordingly. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 30.10.2010. While framing the assessment, the AO observed various defects in the books of accounts. Therefore, he rejected the books of accounts. The AO made addition on account of unrecorded sales, unexplained cash credit under section 68, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), employees PF contribution and sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 5219/Del/2012. The ld. Counsel submitted that this view has been followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Jaipur. The ld. Counsel submitted that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted. In support of the contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). 4.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PMS Diesels vs. CIT (2015) 277 CTR 491 (P&H) and decision of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs. CIT (2015) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these are trading advances. The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained cash credit. The ld. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence direct or indirect to demonstrate that the money so received actually belonged to the assessee. Nowhere the AO has suggested that the money given as advances by different parties had actually flown from the assessee. In absence of such finding, no addition can be made to the income of the assessee. The ld. Counsel submitted that where books are rejected by the AO, no further addition can be made. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Dulla Ram (2014) 42 taxmann.com 349 (P&H). 5.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the author....