TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the TCS credit amounting to Rs. 9,60,514/-. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. At the very outset of the hearing of appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee that the present appeal involves a delay of 36 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR had taken me through the application a/w. affidavit that was filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. It is stated by the assessee in his application that due to the negligence of his regular counsel/consultant, viz. Shri Deepak Agrawal the assessee had remained unaware about the fate of the appeal which had been dismissed by the CIT(Appeals). The Ld. A.R submitted that as the delay of 36 days in filing of the present appeal had occasioned for bonafide reasons, therefore, the same in all fairness merits to be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') did not seriously object to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee. 4. I have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame comprises of two parts, viz. (i) disallowance of direct expenditure (interest) under Rule 8D(2)(i) : Rs. 2,09,936/-; and (ii) disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of administrative expenditure : Rs. 84,372/-. The Ld. AR at the threshold of hearing submitted that as the assessee had sufficient self-owned funds, therefore, no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure was warranted in his case. Elaborating on his contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the disallowance u/s. 14A was made with respect to the investment that was made by the assessee as a partner in a firm, viz. M/s. Anoop Road Carriers, from which, he was in receipt of exempt profit share of Rs. 66,93,921/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on 01.04.2015 had an opening balance of Rs. 16,63,133/- (Credit) in his capital account which, thereafter, by end of the year, i.e., on 31.03.2016 was increased to Rs. 1,71,45,547/- (Credit). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the investment towards capital account with M/s. Anoop Road Carriers, i.e., a partnership firm was sourced by the assessee out of his self owned funds, therefore, no disallowance of the interest expenditure as had been made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the interest-free funds. In fact, the aforesaid view is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if investment in exempt income yielding shares is made out of common funds and the assessee had available non-interest bearing funds larger than the investments made in tax-free securities then in such cases, no disallowance u/s. 14A would be called for. 12. Apparently, a perusal of the "balance sheet" (personal) of the assessee for the year under consideration, Page 21 of APB reveals that he had self-owned funds to source the investment made by him towards his "capital account" with the partnership firm, viz., M/s Anoop Road Carriers. Further perusal of the "capital account" of the assessee, Page 98 of APB reveals that he as on 01.04.2015 had an "opening balance" of Rs. 1,56,12,569/-, which, thereafter, on 31.03.2016 was increased to an amount of Rs. 2,17,09,199/-, Page 98 of APB. As against that the capital of the assessee with M/s. Anoop Road Carriers (supra) had increased from Rs. 16,63,133/- on 01.04.2015 to Rs. 1,71,45,547/- on 31.03.2016. Althou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.O while framing assessment had observed that the assessee had claimed to have received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as advance from M/s. Laxmi Mahila Nagrik. On being queried, it was submitted by the assessee that the aforesaid amount was received way back in FY 2014-15 but as at the relevant point of time, the party was not identified, therefore, the same was reflected against the name of M/s. Laxmi Mahila Nagrik. The assessee submitted that as the party from whom the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received was identified in FY 2017-18, viz. M/s. Kalindi Power Limited; therefore, the latter's name was substituted against that of M/s. Laxmi Mahila Nagrik. As the assessee had failed to substantiate on the basis of confirmation of M/s. Kalindi Power Limited and also the fact that the outstanding liability had remained undischarged till date, therefore, the A.O had made an addition of the same u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 17. After hearing the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, I find that the facts pertaining to the aforesaid issue are absolutely not at all clear. At the same time, I may herein observe that in case genuineness of the liability of Rs. 10,00,000/- which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in all fairness requires to be revisited by him. I, thus, on the basis of my aforesaid deliberations, restore the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence, if any. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations. (C) Declining of the assessee's claim for credit of TCS : Rs. 9,60,514/- 18. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that he had made payment towards purchase of coal in the month of March, 2016 to SECL of Rs. 9,70,12,068/- out of which an amount of Rs. 9,60,514/- was collected as TCS by SECL. Although the assessee had claimed the credit of the amount of TCS of Rs. 9,60,514/- in his return of income, but as the coal was purchased in the immediately succeeding year, therefore, the A.O had declined to allow the credit of the aforesaid amount. 19. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the A.O while framing the assessment had erred in not allowing TCS c....