M/s. Tulips Ambbience Private Ltd., Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune

MA 1/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6813 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , . , ! , ' BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM M.A. NO. 01/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 307/PUN/2015) # $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. TULIPS AMBBIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED. 1025-A, SADHASHIV PETH, VORA KOTHARI BUILDING, PUNE-411 030. PAN : AABCT5650M .. /APPLICANT %# / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7, PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARI KRISHAN REVENUE BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.06.2018 & / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPLICANT VIDE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 04.05.2017. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT IS AGAINST OBSERV ATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 13 AT PAGE 5 OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WHEREIN SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOTED TO BE THAT THE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE NOT FOR 2 MA NO. 01/PUN/2018 A.Y.2010-11 BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE APPLICANT HAS ALLEGED THAT NO SUCH SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBMI SSION WAS THAT ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. 3. SHRI HARI KRISHAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPLICA NT AND DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTE NTION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE LOG BOOK RELATING TO DATE OF HEARING AND FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE APPLICANT . THE LD. AR WHILE ARGUING THE APPEAL HAD ADMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST BUT HAD NOT ADMITTED THAT SAME WERE NOT FO R BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREAFTER, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PA RAS 13 TO 16. HOWEVER, THE MISTAKE IS POINTED OUT IN PARA 13 OF THE ORDER OF T RIBUNAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 13 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET O N RECORD AND HAS ALSO PLACED THE LIST OF ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 200 OF THE PA PER BOOK . THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID LIST REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENIN G BALANCE AGAINST SEVERAL PARTIES AND MOST OF THESE LOANS WERE REPAID BY THE SAID PARTIES BY THE END OF THE YEAR EXCEPT SHRI VIRENDRAKUMAR CHAGANLAL AND OT HE R S. FURTHER THE FUNDS FROM THE LOANS REPAID WERE THEN ADVANCED TO M/S. FO URESSCO TOTALING TO RS . 3 . 05 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY I NTEREST ON THE EA R LIER ADVANCES MADE AND ALSO FROM M/S . FOURESSCO, WHICH WAS ADVANCED AT THE END OF THE YEAR . THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIR L Y ADMITTED TO THE POSITION THAT THE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE NOT FOR BUS I NESS PURPOSES . HOWEVER , HE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE FINANCE CHARGES IS TO BE MA DE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE LIST OF FINANCE CHARGES IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE BREAK UP RS.16,65,055/- IS AS UNDER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT RS. 1 BANK CHARGES 99,318.32 2 LOAN PROCESSING CHARGES 242,336.00 3 BANK INTEREST 1,069,222.00 3 MA NO. 01/PUN/2018 A.Y.2010-11 5. THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY APPLICANT IS BEING CO RRECTED BY AMENDING 12 TH /13 TH LINE OF PARA 13 AND AMENDED PARA 13 NOW READ AS UN DER: 13 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET O N RECORD AND HAS ALSO PLACED THE LIST OF ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 200 OF THE PA PER BOOK . THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID LIST REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENIN G BALANCE AGAINST SEVERAL PARTIES AND MOST OF THESE LOANS WERE REPAID BY THE SAID PARTIES BY THE END OF THE YEAR EXCEPT SHRI VIRENDRAKUMAR CHAGANLAL AND OT HE R S. FURTHER THE FUNDS FROM THE LOANS REPAID WERE THEN ADVANCED TO M/S. FO URESSCO TOTALING TO RS . 3 . 05 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY I NTEREST ON THE EA R LIER ADVANCES MADE AND ALSO FROM M/S . FOURESSCO, WHICH WAS ADVANCED AT THE END OF THE YEAR . THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIR L Y ADMITTED TO THE POSITION THAT THE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. HOWEVER , HE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE FINANCE CHARGES IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE LIST OF FINANCE CHARGES IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE BREAK UP RS.16,65,055/- IS AS UNDER: 6. REST OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL REMAINS UNCHANGED. HENCE, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 4 INTEREST ON TERM LOAN 186,179.04 5 INTEREST ON LOAN 68,000.00 6 BAD DEBITS. -- TOTAL 1,665,055.36 SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT RS. 1 BANK CHARGES 99,318.32 2 LOAN PROCESSING CHARGES 242,336.00 3 BANK INTEREST 1,069,222.00 4 INTEREST ON TERM LOAN 186,179.04 5 INTEREST ON LOAN 68,000.00 6 BAD DEBITS. -- TOTAL 1,665,055.36 4 MA NO. 01/PUN/2018 A.Y.2010-11 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 05 TH JUNE , 2018. SB & ' ()*+ ,+) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-5, PUNE 4. THE CIT-4, PUNE. 5. #$%' &' , !' !&' , ()* , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. %+, -. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / / BY ORDER, 0' &* / PRIVATE SECRETARY !' !&' , / ITAT, PUNE.