TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous additions/disallowances. On appeal, the CIT(A)-6 Bangalore vide the impugned order dated 31/8/2017 allowed the assessee partial relief . Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-6, Bangalore both the assessee and Revenue have filed cross appeals which will be disposed hereunder: 3. Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2145/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year 2012-13) The assessee has filed this appeal wherein he has raised the following grounds:- 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 49,834/- claimed under vehicle maintenance charges of M/s. Thirumala Wines and Legend Bar & Restaurant. 2. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the running expenditure claimed was in the course of business in respect of servicing and repair charges which was required to be incurred in the course of business which had total turnover of Rs. 3,50,81,171/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the expenditure was reasonable and compared well with similar expenditure in the past and accordingly he ought to have allowed the same. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the interest claimed to the tune of Rs. 12,24,714/- which was o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....73,480/- being the outstanding unsecured loan which related to the arrack business which stood banned by the State Government. 14. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that though the arrack business stood banned, the Appellant was continued to be in business and the loans outstanding were liable to be discharged by him and there being no waiver of loan, the impugned addition as made was uncalled for. 15. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the outstanding unsecured loans were not of the relevant year and carried over figures and were outstanding from the financial year 2006-07 onwards and consequently the impugned addition alleging them to be bogus was uncalled for and thus the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. 16. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the principles of natural justice were not followed in that the information collected behind the back of the Appellant was not produced to the Appellant for rebuttal and accordingly the impugned addition is against the principles of natural justice and opposed to law, and accordingly liable to be deleted. 17. The learned CIT (A) ought to have refrained from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim in respect of expenses amounting to Rs. 49,834/-, we find no merit in the grounds 1 to 3 (Supra) raised by the assessee and consequently, uphold the disallowance thereof, made and confirmed by the authorities below. 5. Grounds 4 to 7 - Disallowance of interest on loan - Rs. 12,24,714/- 5.1 In these grounds (Supra), the assessee contends that the authorities below erred in disallowing interest claimed on loans which were borrowed for the purpose of his business through his mother from the bank u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also contended that the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to was distinguishable. The ld AR for the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised . 5.2 Per contra, the ld DR for Revenue supported the order of the AO in disallowing the interest. According to the ld DR, it is not the assessee but the assessee's mother, Smt. Vijaylakshmi, herself as Income-tax assessee, who had availed the said loan from Corporation Bank and the facts on record establish that it is the assessee who has made payment of the interest on the said loan of his mother directly to the Bank on behalf of his mother. The ld DR drew the attention o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence is filed to establish the assessee's claim, we uphold the disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh, out of repairs and maintenance expenses claimed, made and upheld by the authorities below. Consequently, finding no merit in the grounds No. 8 & 9 raised by the assessee, we dismiss the same. 7. Ground No. 12 - Disallowance of Vehicle Maintenance expense - Rs. 72,925/- 7.1 In this ground, the assessee challenges the disallowance of Rs. 72,925/- out of vehicle maintenance expenses claimed. After being heard both parties, we have perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the order of assessment that the AO, after putting the assessee on notice vide letter dated 7/8/2014, disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,925/- out of vehicle maintenance expenses claimed; in the absence of supporting documentary evidence is being filed. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has upheld the above disallowance made by the AO for the reason that no documentary evidence was filed before her to support the assessee's claim. Before us also, since no supporting documentary evidence is filed to establish the assessee's claim, we uphold the disallowance of Rs. 72,925/- out of vehicle maintenance ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Fin Year 2006-07 onwards and consequently the impugned additions could not have been sustained. 9.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. In the impugned order, the ld CIT(A) after considering the AO's view in the order of assessment, the assessee's claim and the material on record has upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2,47,73,480/- (out of the addition of Rs. 3,49,112/-) and Rs. 50 lakhs made by the AO; holding as under at paras 19 to 28 of her order. 19. Addition of Rs. 3,4977,112/- on account of unsecured loans. - The AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,49,77112/- shown as unsecured loan by the appellant. Perusal of assessment order reveal that appellant had not provided PAN, date of loan transaction, address of creditors, identity etc. However appellant stated before AO that these were old loans appearing in earlier years. It is noted that appellant was provided several opportunities by AO to furnish confirmations in respect of these unsecured loans. However, appellant furnish PAN in respect of 13 creditors out of a total of 43 creditors. Therefore AO held that 30 creditors identity of cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same was brought to taxation. 23. It may be noted that submissions filed by appellant during appellate proceedings were forwarded to AD for his comments white seeking Remand Report However, no detailed enquiry was made in respect of these entries by seeking clarification from appellant. The remand report merely stated since the information in the letter was not furnished the same was brought to taxation'. 24. In view of the fact that amount of Rs. 55,94,0911- was sum paid to HDFC Bank by M/s Brigade Gateways and in view of the fact that amount of Rs. 46,09,541/- represented closing balance of appellant's mother in appellant's books, addition of the said amounts under the head unsecured loan totalling Rs. 3,49,77,1121- is found to be unsustainable. Hence the same stands deleted. Appellant gets relief of Rs. 1,02,03,632/-i.e. (3,49,77,112-55,94,091- 46,09,541). Consequently addition of Rs. 2,47,73,4801- is sustained and confirmed. 25. Addition of Rs- 6457,200/- under the head excise duty payable. - AD held that appellant had shown Rs. 64,57,200/- as rent payable to Excise Department as unexplained since appellant failed to file documentary ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 2012-13 is dismissed. Revenues Appeal in ITA No: 213/Bang/2018 - (AY 2012-13) 12. In this appeal, revenue has raised the following grounds:- "1. 1 The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the matter based on the fresh evidences submitted by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to examine such evidences which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal." 13. Ground Nos: 1 and 4 (Supra) being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon and consequently these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 14. Ground No: 2 & 3 - Violation of provisions of Rule 46A(3) 14.1.1 In this ground (supra), Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to file details, submissions required. It was pointed out that at various places in the impugned order the ld CIT(A) had erroneously referred to the AO's 'remand report dated 19/5/2015'. It is contended that as per record, there is no evidence of any remand report having been called for by the ld CIT(A) from the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act at any stage of proceedings and what the ld CIT(A) refers to as ' remand report dated 19/5/2015 is actually para wise comments of the AO with respect to the points raised in assessee's appeal petition for asst. year 2012-13 filed on 19/3/2015 on statement of facts, etc. 14.2 The ld AR for the assessee supported the impugned order of the ld CIT(A). On being queried by the bench the ld AR could not place on record any order of the remand u/s 250(4) of the Act called for by the ld CIT(A) from the AO; and more particularly in respect of the fresh details/evidence filed in respect of the cash credits of Brigade Gateway's and Smt Vijayalakxmi; which is the subject matter of Revenue's appeal. 14.3.1 We have heard the rival contention and perused and carefully considered the material on record before us. In our view, an appraisal of the facts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the [Assessing Officer]) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] 14.3.2 A perusal of Rule 46A (Supra) would suggest that sub Rule -1 places an embargo on the assessee to such permission for producing evidence, either oral or documentary. Such evidence can only be permitted to be produced, if the conditions enumerated in sub clause (a) to (d) are met. As per sub Rule-2, the ld CIT has to record in writing why he or she had admitted the additional evidence. Sub Rule-3 contemplates that if additional evidence is taken on record, then it cannot be considered on merit, unless opportunity is afforded to the AO to comment on the evidence or documents or to cross-examine the witness produced by the assessee. Apart from that, the AO is to be afforded opportunity to produce any evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. Sub Rule-4 is an exception to all ....