TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,26,30,730/-, made by the AO by disallowing the expenditure interest paid on loans. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in admission of additional evidence without allowing the opportunity to the Assessee Officer to submit remand report and thereby allowing the appeal and deleting the admission of additional evidence without allowing the opportunity to the Assessing additions to the tune of Rs. 7,45,25,000/- added u/s 68 Act, 1961, and Rs. 1,15,79,384/- added in business income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,79,384/- as busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year. It is evidently clear that the assessee was having non-interest bearing funds more than the amount of withdrawals by its members. Thus, the debit balance in the capital account of the members did not have any nexus with the interest-bearing unsecured loans. After considering the facts of the case, it is evident that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire expenses on account of interest of Rs. 1,26,30,730/-. The conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer that the interest-bearing funds of loans were not utilized for business purposes is not tenable. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to establish the nexus that interest bearing funds were utilized for non-business purposes. Since, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered view that the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue are very clear and need no interference. Accordingly, Revenue's appeal on this issue is dismissed. 5. Appeal on ground No.2 is against the admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the addition to the tune of Rs. 7,45,25,000/- added u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,15,79,384/- added as business income. The Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order has given a very exhaustive findings which is reproduced as under: - "I have gone through the submission and same has been perused carefully. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has taken unsecured loans of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- from Smt. Saroj Jain during the year. It is noted that the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was transferred to Head Office from Hisar Branch on 31.03.2022. There was an opening balance of unsecured loan of Rs. 44,50,000/- in the account of Sh. Kashmiri Lal as on 01.04.2021. Further, the amount of loan of Rs. 16,25,500/- received on 10.09.2020 from Sh. Kashmiri Lal, which was wrongly entered in the account of M/s Keshubhai Enterprises, has been corrected and entered in the account of Sh. Kashmiri Lal making the total at Rs. 60,75,500/- (Rs. 44,50,000 + Rs. 16,25,500). In respect of Subhas Bansal, the appellant received an unsecured loan of Rs. 29,00,000/- from Sh. Subhash Bansal on 02.04.2021 through RTGS. It is noted from the bank account statement of Sh. Subhash Bansal with Bank of India that he had received an amount of Rs. 29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the next ground, on this issue of deletion of addition to the tune of Rs. 1,15,79,384/- as business income, the Ld. CIT(A) has given his findings as under: - "I have gone through the submission and same has been perused carefully. It is pertinent to note that the appellant claimed gross purchases at Rs. 778,29,71,684/- as per the P&L Account for the said year. However, as per the statement of computation of income, tax collected at source (TCS) was claimed at Rs. 7,77,13,913/-. Accordingly, the total purchases are worked out at Rs. 777,13,92,300/-. Thus, there is a difference in gross purchases amounting to Rs. 1,15,79,384/-. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant stated that the appellant company has debited c....