TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019. Since these appeals involved an identical issue, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee (since expired) was one of the assessees covered under a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which was carried out at the business and residential premises of M/s Sham Jewellers group of cases. The said search took place on 15.09.2016. The original return of income had been filed declaring income at 'nil' for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. For the assessment year 201718, the return of income was filed reflecting income of Rs. 29,92,940/-. In response to notices issued u/s 153A of the Act, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2017-18, being interest paid by the assessee on account of payment of income tax / advance tax. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the First Appellate Authority challenging the addition / disallowance of interest. However, the contentions of the assessee did not find any favour with the First Appellate Authority and he confirmed the disallowance of interest in all the three years under consideration. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee is now before this Tribunal challenging the above such disallowance and the grounds raised by the assessee in the respective assessment years are as under:- ITA No. 5/Chd/2021 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the framing the assessment u/s 153A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs. 12,86,361/- paid on account of amount withdrawn for payment of taxes from M/s Sham Fashion Mall in utter disregard of the submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 6. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable ITA No. 6/Chd/2021 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the framing the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs. 14,59,189/- paid on account of amount withdrawn for payment of taxes from M/s Sham Fashion Mall in utter disregard of the submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 6. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable ITA No. 7/Chd/2021 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the framing the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs. 17,04,380/- paid on account of amount withdrawn for payment of taxes from M/s Sham Fashion Mall in utter disregard of the submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 6. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that only ground No.3 in all the three appeals was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the debit balance and there was nothing wrong with it. It was submitted that the impugned disallowance, being bad in law, should be deleted. 4.0. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had rightly upheld the disallowance. The Ld. CIT DR supported the concurrent orders of the authorities below. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The only reason for which the Assessing officer seems to have made the impugned disallowance in all the three years under consideration is that the assessee had made withdrawals for the purpose of payment of taxes and had claimed interest such paid as expenditure. We agree with the cont....