AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the facts and evidences submitted before the assessing officer and also not following the appellate order in appellant own case on the similar facts of AY 2013-14 in CIT(A)/Jam/36/16-17/133 dated 02-05-2017 and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. . 6,30,455 made to total income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act read with rule 8D of Income-Tax Rules made by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) Jamnagar ought to have follow the judgments of Hon. IT AT, Ahmedabad Bench's order in the case of Canton Laboratories (2013) 35 CCH 353 Ahd-Trib, and also Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in CIT v Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (2013) 84 CCH 087 GujHC and CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 583 (Guj), as relied upon by the then CIT(A) in appellant own case and ought to have deleted to the addition of Rs.6,30,455 made to total income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act read with rule 8D of Income-Tax Rules made by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(Appeals) Jamn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the assessee, more particularly the profit & loss account for the impugned year (placed at PB Page No.28) pointing out therefrom that the assessee had booked income only on account of the sales made therein and no other income, and had claimed interest expenses of Rs.29,50,804/- against the same. He drew our attention thereafter to the balance sheet of the business firm (placed at PB Page No.46) pointing out therefrom that no investment of any sort was made in the business of the assessee. He thereafter took us to the balance sheet of the assessee, which was consolidated balance sheet of his personal and business transactions and which separately reflected the two sets of transactions(placed PB Page Nos.22 to 24) pointing out therefrom that all investments made in PFF and shares from which dividend income and tax free capital gain had been earned was reflected as his personal assets acquired from his personal funds. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that these submissions had been made by him before the ld.CIT(A) also reproduced at page no.4 of his order to which our attention drawn as under: "1. In a proprietary business account the appellant M/s. Son// Builder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with rule 8D of the rules. In a appeal Honorable CIT(A), Jamnagar as per appellate order in appeal No . CIT(A)/Jam/36/16-17/133, dated 02/05/2017 has deleted the total addition relying on the Hon.ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench Court decision in CIT v Gujarat Corporation ltd. We rely on the submission made in appellate proceedings for AY 2013-14. Please consider the same also. 8. Under the circumstances it is hereby requested your honour to please delete the total addition made at Rs.6f30,455/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8d of the Rules and oblige." 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee thereafter pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the contentions of the assessee stating that the assessee had not furnished documentary evidences in support of his contentions. He thereafter contended that documentary evidences being financial statement of the assessee's business and his personal finance statement, all of them were filed along with return of income and formed part of the assessment record itself, which was evidenced from the order of the AO, wherein he had noted the facts of earning exempt income and claiming expenses from the records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that disallowance made under section 14A having been made on identical set of facts as Asst.Year 2013-14, which addition was deleted by the ld.CIT(A), the same needs to be deleted in the present case also. 8. The ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) at para 5.1 as under: "5.1 All the facts as stated by the AR of the appellant in his submission as discussed in just preceding paragraph of this appeal order are not supported by any documentary evidences and records. These are the mere submission of AR of the appellant. The AR of the appellant has not submitted balance sheets and other relevant records and evidences of the year under consideration and also of earlier years in the personal case of the appellant and also in the case of proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Sonil Builders so as to establish that there was no investment in the proprietary concern from which the exempted income was earned and also to prove that no borrowed funds were used by the appellant diverting the same from M/s. Sonil Builders to personal set of accounts. The AO in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) has very specifically mentioned that the appellant had borrowed funds from and Bank and Priv....