G1T(A) that the funds for earning interest is higher than the amount of borrowed funds. 4,25.86,325/~, on interest to different parties. C1T(A) in his findings clearly held that the assessee had given Rs. CIT(A) and is reproduced hereunder:- 4.1 The Id. The relevant data in the matter is extracted from the order of Id. As such it was contended that no disallowance on this count is called for. CIT(A) that through out the year borrowed fund is on the lower side as compared to fund given on interest. I t was, further, demonstrated in the form of submission field before the Id. CIT(A), as recorded at page 2 of the appellate order that own fund of the assessee exceeded borrowed funds, on which the interest was paid. In this case the assessee submitted before the Id. We have carefully perused the facts of the case, rival submissions and the case laws relied on by both the parties including the paper book. Our attention was drawn to para 4.5 of the order as under:Ĥ. Pawan Kumar Goel in ITA No.1438/Chd/2010 dated wherein the total amount of funds deployed for earning interest was viewed against the borrowed funds and af ter ITA No.254/Chd/2014 A.Y.2010-11 ITA No.260/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 ITA No.24/Chd/2017 A.Y.2012-13 considering the same the disallowance of interest u/s 57(i i i ) of the Act was worked out. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that identical issue had been dealt with by the ITAT Chandigarh Benches in the case of ACIT, Circle-V I, Ludhiana Vs. It was pointed out that the fact of the matter was that there were mixed funds available with the assessee and it was diff icult, therefore, to work out the direct nexus between the borrowed funds util ized for making loans and advances. counsel f or assessee contended that the method employed by the Ld.CIT (A) for working out the disallowance of interest was incorrect. and re levant f ind ings have been in para Nos.6 to 11 of the aforesaid re ferred to order dated, which read as under :Ħ. A f ter consider ing the submissions of both the part ies and mater ia l ava i lable on record, i t is not i ced that an ident ica l issue hav ing s imilar facts was a subject matter o f the assessee s appeal in the a foresaid re ferred to cases o f S/Shr i Rajeev Singal and V inay Singal for assessment year 2011-13, where in ident ical issue hav ing s imi lar facts re la t ing to d isal lowance of inte rest u/s 57 of the Act, had been restored to the f i le o f the A. counse l for assessee was not controverted by the Ld. Pawan Kumar Goe l in ITA No.1438/Chd/2010 dated 31. in the case of ACIT, Circ le -VI, Ludhiana Vs. by fo l lowing the earl ie r order o f the I. 261 & 262/Chd/2015 for assessment year 2011-12 and in ITA Nos.22 & 23/Chd/2017 for assessment year 2012-13, be fore the ITAT Chandigarh Bench B, Chandigarh, where in v ide order dated the i ssue had been set as ide to the f i l e o f the A. counse l for assessee submitted that an ident ical issue hav ing s imi lar facts re la t ing to disa l lowance u/s 57 of the Act was involved in the case of the assessee s brothers, namely S/Shr i Ra jeev S inga l and Vinay Singal in I TA Nos. u/s 57 o f the Income Tax Ac t, 1961 (here ina fter re ferred to as the Act ). The f i rs t issue v ide ground Nos.1 & 2 re la tes to the sustenance o f disal lowance of inte rest made by the A.O. ![]() Assessing Officer in disallowing a sum of Rs. CIT(A) was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. That he was also not justified to hold that the total disallowance of interest u/s 57 was warranted at Rs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ITA No.254/Chd/2014 A.Y.2010-11 ITA No.260/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 ITA No.24/Chd/2017 A.Y.2012-13 was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. Fo l lowing grounds have been ra ised in this appea l :ġ. At the f i rst instance, we may dea l w i th the appea l in ITA No.254/Chd/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. S ince the issues involved in a l l the appeals are common, so these were heard together and are be ing d isposed of f by th is consol idated order for the sake o f convenience and brevi ty. Per N.K.Saini, Vice President: These three appeals f i l ed by the same assessee agains t the separate orders dated, and o f learned Commiss ioner o f Income Tax (Appea ls ) -2, Ludhiana, re lat ing to assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 respect i ve ly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |