TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,72,157/- towards loss from other source and set off u/s.71 of IT Act, 1961. Prayed to allow the loss of Rs.2,72,157/- to bet set under the head income from business as per section 71 of IT Act, 1961. 2. That under the facts and laws, the learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,21,099/- by wrongly estimating accrued interest on loan. The bank guarantee invoked by the bank Rs.12,75,000/- has not been considered by the learned CIT(A) while deciding the case. It was also ignored by the learned CIT(A), that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank of India Rs.25,914/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance before us, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR), perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee had disclosed his income u/s.44AD of the Act, therefore, it was to be presumed that all the expenses mentioned in Sec. 29 to 43C of the Act were to be deemed to have been already given full effect, the A.O declined the assessee's claim for set-off of the aforesaid amount of business expenditure against his deemed income disclosed u/s.44AD of the Act. 8. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, we find substance in the view taken by the A.O that now when the assessee had opted to disclose his income under the deeming provisions of section 44AD of the Act, then, it was not permissible on his part to have separately claimed set-off of the aforesaid expenses as the same were to be deemed to have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 10. We shall now take up the grievance of the assesee that both the lower authorities had erred in making/sustaining the addition of Rs.23,21,099/- u/s.43B(e) of the Act. Controversy qua the issue in hand lies in a narrow compass. During the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had incurred interest expenditure on the secured loans raised from Bank of India, as under: Description of bank a.y.09-10 a.y.08-09 Increment (Interest) BOI c/c a/c 30340003 Rs.1,12,77,208/- Rs.94,53,284/- Rs.18,23,924/- BOI T/L A/c. No.70230038 Rs.48,60,849/- Rs.45,28,830/- Rs.3,32,019/- BOI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,522/-), observing as under: "................To estimate the receipt the earlier year contract account of the assessee's has to be taken for base of estimation of gross receipt. In the a.y.08-09, the assessee submitted audit report and therein it is noted that net profit is shown at Rs.3,73,385/- out of total contract receipt of Rs.1,88,96,707/- and out of this amount the assessee paid interest of Rs.36,28,649/-, claimed depreciation of Rs.5,00,054/-. Hence for a.y.08-09 the proportionate expenses against the total receipt is 23.82%. Therefore, for a.y.09-10, proportionate contract receipt against the amount of Rs.27,56,813/- [Interest Rs.23,21,099/-+ depreciation Rs.2,03,321/-+ income Rs.2,32,393/-] will be Rs.1,15,73,522/-. Agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timating the income of the assessee at Rs.6,93,488/- i.e. @8% of the said impugned receipts. At this stage, we may herein observe that the Department had accepted the aforesaid view of the CIT(Appeals) and had not carried the matter any further in appeal before us. In so far sustainability of the impugned disallowance of bank interest of Rs.23,21,099/-u/s.43B(e) of the Act is concerned, we are unable to find favour with the same. In our considered view, now when the assessee had disclosed his income u/s.44AD of the Act, therefore, no disallowance of the aforesaid amount was called for in his hands. As the disallowance u/s.43B presupposes raising of a claim for deduction, therefore, now when in the case before us the assessee had not sought ....