M/s. Tirupati Construction Co., Bharuch V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Bharuch

ITSSA 177/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9082 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLEE AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION 3-4, BHAGYODAY ESTATE ZADESHWAR CHOKDI, BHARUCH PAN AACFT 9517 H (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE CIR-2 BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SMT. ROLEE AGARWAL, CIT-D. R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI S.N. DIVETIA A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-05-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25-09-2009. IT(SS)A NO. 177/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 I.T.(SS).A NO. 177/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2002-03 PAGE NO M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ONLY ONE GROUND WAS PRESS ED WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXP. OF RS. 2,29,735/- U/S. 40A(2)(B) O N THE GROUND THAT IT WAS EXCESSIVE. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFI CER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST @ 18 % TO THE PERSONS SP ECIFIED U/S 40A(2)(B) EXCEPT THE HUFS OF KANTILAL P SHAH AND VIJAY K. SH AH WHERE INTEREST @ 24 % PER ANNUM WAS GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAL LOWED THE INTEREST PAID IN EXCESS OF 18 % IN CASE OF BOTH THESE HUFS AND MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,735/- AS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)B OF THE ACT WAS NOT DISPUTED. THE ONLY CONTENTION BEF ORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THE FUNDS WERE ARRANGED AS AND WHEN NEEDS AROSE AND THE RATE OF INTEREST WAS DECIDED AT THE TIME OF NEED WHICH DEPENDED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS LIKELY THE SPECIFIED PERSONS ARRANGED FUNDS FROM OT HERS AND HAD GIVEN HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. HOWEVER NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT O F THIS SUBMISSION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE THEREFORE AGRE ED THAT THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 24 % PER ANNUM TO THE TWO HUFS WAS ON HIGHER SIDE AS COMPARED TO THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO OTHER SPECIFIED PERSONS AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSES SING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,735/-. BEFORE US ALSO THE SUB MISSION MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS REITERATED WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE W HATSOEVER. THEREFORE, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. I.T.(SS).A NO. 177/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2002-03 PAGE NO M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT 3 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ( D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 10/05/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#