TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50/2022-23/1051794703(1) dated 31.03.2023 for the A.Y. 2014-15 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 30.12.2016. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. DR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the revenue along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - "3. .... The Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Vijayawada is currently holding four charges and due to this, the correspondence with the Range Office has resulted in a delay. Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In response to the notice's, assessee furnished various information called for from time to time. After examining the submissions, the Ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment by making the following additions: - i. Rs. 31,17,823/- was added u/s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act for delay in payment of Provident Fund. ii. Rs. 2,04,375/- was added u/s. 43B, r.w.s. 36(1)(ii) of I.T. Act towards delay in payment of bonus to employees. iii. Rs. 5,11,21,540/- was disallowed out of the interest claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c. This disallowance came on account of non- charging of interest from the sister concerns/related companies. iv. Rs. 93,06,321/- was disallowed u/s 35(2AB) 5. Aggrieved by the additions made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces. He further submitted these interest free advances were considered as advances towards business exigences to the related parties. However, Ld. DR further submitted that the advances made are disproportionate to the business dealings with the related parties. He therefore pleaded that order of the Assessing Officer be upheld on this issue. 9. Per contra, Ld. Authorized Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld.AR"] submitted that there were no fresh advances to sister concerns during the impugned Assessment year. Ld.AR further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has fully relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., v. CIT and considered that the amount advanced is in the nature of "Commercial Expediency....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant observation of the Ld. Assessing Officer in Para Nos. 4.6 & 4.7, is reproduced as under: - "4.6 Before finalizing the discussion on this issue, it is in place to bring out the submissions made by the Whole-time Director in response to invocation of provisions of section 14A in his individual assessment proceedings. While working out the amount of investments made in his individual capacity (including in the capacity of proprietor of various concerns) for the purpose of calculation u/s.14A, the Director reduced the unsecured loans from various investee companies / concerns, including the assessee-company, wherein an amount of Rs. 25.97 crores was shown and reduced being unsecured loan from M/S Tulasi Seeds Pvt Ltd against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total claim of interest on borrowings of Rs. 7,31,70,264/- as corresponding borrowed funds were not utilized for the purposes of business of the assessee." 11. Further, we also find that assessee has not produced any valid evidences regarding the advances made to M/s. Diehard Dies Pvt., Limited, even before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the onus is on the Ld. Assessing Officer to prove that their exist an undue personal benefit to the Individual Director involved in the sister concerns of the assessee Company. We do not agree with this view as onus is on the assessee to prove that there is "commercial expediency" for the advances taken as interest free from the related parties. From the financials of the M/s. Coastal Packagings, ....