M/S. ATCOM TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI V. THE DY CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2063/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 206319914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 28; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04) ATCOM TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 6-A, LALWANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 14, G.D. AMBEDKAR ROAD, WADALA, MUMBAI-400031 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA2058C & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K GOPAL ' & * /RESPONDENT : SHRI JAVED AKHTAR * - / DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 26.12.2007. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,51,55,074/- OF THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF CONSIDERING IT AS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS GROUND O F APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RETAIL AUTOMATIO N PRODUCTS, COMPONENTS AND SERVICES, POLYCARBONATE BOTTLES AND PLASTIC ARTICLES. ASSES SEE PAID AN ADVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTIES/FLATS FROM A BUIL DER VIZ SHREE SIDDHIVINAYAK BUILDERS AGGREGATING TO RS.7,88,90,000/- THE INTEREST ON MONIES BORROWED TO FINANCE THESE PURCHASES WERE CAPITALIZED IN EARLIER YEARS I.E. FINANCIAL YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 AND INCLUDED IT IN CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRE SS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,51,55,074/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASS ESSEE REVERSED THE SAID ENTRIES I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 2 AND DEBITED THE INTEREST AMOUNT TO PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT AND CREDITED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.3,51,55,074/- TO CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS WRITTEN OFF. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS DEDUCTION. 4. AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH THE WRI TE-OFF A CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURES OF RS.3,51,55,074/- WERE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IN EARLI ER YEARS AS INTEREST ON CAPITAL BORROWED AND IT WAS ESSENTIALLY ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE REASONS GIVEN BY AO HAVE ALSO BEEN SUMMARIZED BY LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER : 1. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ANY EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED IN THE INSTANT CASE, INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. F.Y. 1997-98 TO 99/00 . THEREFORE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME IS CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL WIP WRITTEN OFF ACC OUNT IN F.Y. 02-03 AND DEBITED TO P & L A/C IT IS ACTUALLY A PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDI TURE AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. SECTI ON 36(1)(III) PROVIDES FOR- DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT THEN IT MUST BE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR OF PROFITS ARE BEI NG COMPUTED. A UNILATERAL DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF INTEREST OR ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED BUT IT IN EARLIER YEARS AND DEBITI NG IT TO P&L ACCOUNT DOES NOT CHARGED THE CHARACTER OF THE EXPENSES AND NEITHER I T MAKES THAT EXPENDITURE, AN EXPENDITURE OF YEAR IN WHICH IT IS DEBITED TO P&L A CCOUNT. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH CAPITAL WIP WRITTEN OFF CONSIST ONLY OF INTE REST, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III). 2. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WH ICH WRITE-OFF OF CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTI ON. SECTION 28 AND 37(1) PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION OF REVENUE EXPENSES INCIDENTA L TO BUSINESS. THE REFERRED EXPENSES OF RS.3,51,55,074/- WERE INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IN EARLIER YEARS AS INTEREST ON CAPITAL BORROWED FOR DEVELOPME NT OF A NEW PROJECT ESSENTIALLY ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN L EGISLATIVE INTENT TO ALLOW SUCH EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE ONLY EXCEP TION ALLOWED IN THE ACT WHERE THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INFRUCTUOUS OR AB ORTIVE EXPLORATION EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA ALLOWED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN C ONDITIONS. HAD IT BEEN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE ON ABORTED OR DISCARDED CAPITAL ASSETS OR PROJECTS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCIDENTAL TO BUSIN ESS GENERAL PROVISION TO THAT REGARD WOULD HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN THE LAW OR SPECI FIC PROVISIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING ON A S IMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF TRIVENI ENGINEERING WORKS LTD (232 ITR 639) OBSERV ED THAT, THE TEST TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN A CAPITAL AND A REVENUE EXPEND ITURE IS NOT STRAIGHT. AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE THOUGH INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCL USIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS MAY NEVERTHELESS BE INADMISSIBLE AS AN ALLOWANCE IF IT IS OF A CAPITAL NATURE. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT ON THE PROJECT REPORTS ON MANUFACTURING A NEW FORMULATION WHICH COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WAS NOT I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 3 ALLOWABLE AND AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS HEL D THAT EXPENDITURE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CAPITAL HAVING BEEN INCURRED WITH A VIEW TO BRINGING AN ASSET AN ADVANTAGE INTO EXISTENCE AND HAVING ENDURING BENEFI T. MERELY BECAUSE THE PROJECT DID NOT MATERIALIZE THE NATURE OF EXPENDITU RE WOULD NOT CHANGE TO REVENUE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H ASMIRA INDUSTRIES (230 ITR 927) ALSO HELD THAT A DEPOSIT WHICH WAS MADE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A PROFIT MAKING ASSET WOULD NOT HELD TO BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT R ESULTED AS A LOSS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MOHAN MEAKEN BREWERIES LTD. VS. CIT (227 ITR 878) HAS ALSO HELD THAT LOSS ARISING OUT OF DISCARDING OF MILK PLANT AND WRITTEN OFF WAS NOT AL LOWABLE AS AN EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE RATIO LAID BY VARIOUS COURTS, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,51,55,074 CLAIMED AS REVENUE E XPENSES WERE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE AND TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A). 5. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEARS AGGREGATIN G TO RS.3,51,55,074/-. THAT THE SAID INTEREST WAS PAID ON THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE UTILIZ ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04 ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT MATERIALIZED DUE TO DELAY IN THE PROJECT BY THE DE VELOPER, THE ASSESSEE WRITTEN OFF THE SAID INTEREST IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CAP ITALIZED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPEN DITURE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE S YSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE PROVISION FOR INTEREST NOW BEING CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 RELATED TO EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CAPITALIZED THE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSES SEE WAS ALSO TO GET CAPITAL ASSET, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CAPITAL AS THE EXPE NDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS INCURRED FOR BRINGING THE ASSET INTO EXISTENCE WHIC H IS A CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE STATED THE IF THE PROJECT COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED THEN IT IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS AND NOT REVENUE IN NATURE. HENCE, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR MADE HIS SU BMISSIONS ON THE LINE OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. AR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 4 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDS. LTD. (2003) 260 ITR 579(BOM) SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSES SEE HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TO ACQUIRE THE ASSET WHICH IS TO BE USED FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSES, THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH RELATES TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE THOUGH THE ASSES SEE IN THE EARLIER RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS CAPITALIZED THE SAME. HOWEVER, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS I N THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND NOT IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT PUR CHASE OF FLAT BY ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDS. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. AR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE SAID INTEREST EXPEN DITURE RELATES TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME EVEN OTHERWISE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AL SO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR (SUPRA). 9. FIRSTLY, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT THE CASE OF LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDS. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. AR IS NOT APP LICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND THEREFORE, THE MONIES WERE NOT BORROWED FOR OBTAINI NG DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF LAND UNLIKE IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY LD. AR. THE ASSESSEE BORROWED MONEY TO ACQUIRE CAPITAL ASSET AND THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL WAS CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE SAID INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 AND NOT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE IS CLAIMING THE INTEREST AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN THE CONCERNED RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEARS. HENCE, WE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 5 10. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE REL ATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.3,37,58,560/- ON ACCOUNT OF USE OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. 11. RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS.7,18,35,000/- TO SARALDISHA INVESTMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999- 2000 AS AN ADVANCE TO ACQUIRE SHARES OF ONE OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ATCO HEALT HCARE LTD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET SHARES, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS LOAN. THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED BORROWED CAPITAL AND THE SAID BORROWED CAPITAL WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY BUT HAS BEEN UT ILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. AO HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID I NTEREST ON ITS BORROWED CAPITAL AT THE RATE OF 16% PER ANNUM, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED T HE AMOUNT OF RS.13,91,56,000/- IN THE SHARES OF THE SAID SUBSIDIARY COMPANY PRESENTLY KNOWN AS NHN CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ATCO HEALTH CARE LTD.) THE AGG REGATE OF THESE AMOUNTS COMES TO RS.21,09,91,000/-. AO CONSIDERED THE INTEREST AT T HE RATE OF 16% ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT WHICH COMES TO RS.3,37,58,560/- AND DISALLOWED TH E SAME U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE AO RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PHALTAN SUGAR WORKS LTD V/S CIT (208 ITR 989) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT BUSINESS OF SUBSIDIARY COM PANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN LAW AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IF THE MO NIES BORROWED WERE UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND NOT FOR THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY , IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST ON LOAN BORROWED FOR AD VANCING TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. BEING AGG RIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 12. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON THE LINES OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THE SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND ADVANCE TO ACQUIRE SHARES OF THE SUBSI DIARY COMPANY WERE GIVEN FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER COMMERCIAL CONSIDE RATION. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A BUILDERS VS. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IN RESPECT OF INTEREST IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF AO. LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF S A BUILDERS (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS I N THAT CASE THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 6 SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE BUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO PURCHASE SHARES OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND HENCE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY. HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURC HASE OF SHARES OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AMOUNT TO DIVERSION OF FUNDS. THEREFORE, T HE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCE TO ACQUIRE SHARES IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS OF THE ADVANCE GIVEN AND THE BORROWED FUNDS USED BY ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD ITS OWN FUN DS. IN REPLY TO A QUERY ON THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AS TO WHETHER IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSMENT WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE LINK THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND NO B ORROWED MONIES WERE USED. LD. AR ALSO FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT BORROWED MONIES WERE USED BY ASSESSE E FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ONLY OWN MONEY WAS USED TO GIVE ADVANCE TO PURCHASE SHARES OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. 14. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE REASONS AS GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 6TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * 1 2 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * SD SD ( /RAJENDRA ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2 DATED 6/ 11/2013 I.T.A. NO.2063/MUM/2008 7 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 6 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 7 '9 , - 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 9 , /ITAT, MUMBAI