TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 and circumstances of the case, ld. AO has erred in charging interest U/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T. 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. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and prop. of M/s. Goyal Enterprises Gharsana, who indulged in business of grains gaur and agriculture products. He filed its return of income on 30/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in confirming the addition made on a/c of disallowing interest Rs. 8,89,780/- and adding it into income. He has made this addition for not charging interest on advances given by the assessee. Ld. AO has made addition Rs. 8,89,780/- on account of not charging interest on the debtors (AO's order page 10). Ld. AO has erred in disallowing interest Rs. 8,89,780/- and adding it into income. He has made this addition for not charging interest on debtors. It is submitted that none of these parties were covered u/s. 402(A)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961. All the parties to whom advances are given is purely related to our business. All the parties mentioned in the AO order page no. 10 to whom advanced are provided comes unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The amount outstanding from the trade debtors cannot be held as amounts given on loan. No materials have been brought by the Assessing Officer to impute that the delay in receiving the outstanding balance amounts from the four debtors parties was on account of deliberate act of the appellant. The appellant's case is well supported by the following decisions: (i) D & H Secheron Electrodes P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax (1983) 35 CTR (MP) 41 High Court of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Premier Auto Finance P. Ltd. (1980) 18 CTR (Del) 295 High Court of Delhi. (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Kopp Ltd. (2008) 167 Taxman 172 (Del) High Court of Delhi. iv) Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pects and all the parties listed in the order of the AO. are dealing in regular sale and purchases with the assessee and none of those parties are in any way related to the assessee. In order to justify the payment to the said parties, it was specifically submitted by the assessee that since there was decrease in the price of guar, therefore, the orders which were placed, could not be finalized and the advances given for procuring the stock were thus received back with no interest and since these were not in the nature of interest free advances provided but for the sake of business augmentation, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the A.O. could have made additions on account of non-charging of interest from the said parties. It was fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is borne out from the record that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on the other hand, certain amounts had been advanced to sister concerns or others without carrying any interest and without any business purpose, the interest to the extent the advance had been made without carrying ay interest is to be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act." However, in the present case, no amount has been advanced to the sister concern or others without any business purposes. The A.O. has not demonstrated that the amount paid by the assessee to the parties was without any 'business expediency' moreover, no independent enquiry has ever been conducted by the A.O. from the said partie....