Spectoms Engineering Pvt.Ltd.,, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(3),, Baroda

ITA 836/AHD/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 83620514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AACCS9401Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 836/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Spectoms Engineering Pvt.Ltd.,, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(3),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 23-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 23-06-2017
First Hearing Date 23-06-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 17-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. 114 GIDC ESTATE MAKARPURA BARODA PAN: AACCS 9401Q (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO WARD - 4(3) BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI MU DIT NAGPAL SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI MEHUL K. PATEL A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 11 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 11 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THESE FOUR ASSESSEE S APPEAL S FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 07 - 08 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 AR ISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - III BARODA DATED 08 - 02 - 2012 31 - 08 - 2010 24 - 09 - 2012 & 09 - 12 - 2013 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO S . 836 / A HD/20 12 06/AHD/2011 2627/A HD/2012 & 562/AHD/2014 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 07 - 08 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 06/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOU NT OF BAD DEBTS TO RS.33 90 768/ - UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE I T ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF THE DEBTS AS BAD IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. 2.0 T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS TO ASSOCIATE CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12 04 742/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT SPIRIT. 3.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT IONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25 000/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS.50 000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL EXPENSES ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 4.0 THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND RELATING TO THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE I T ACT. 5.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 234C AND 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUND S OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: - DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT OF RS. 33 90 768/ - : - 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 15 160/ - .D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 66 90 942/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DECLINED THE CLAIM AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. THEREFORE BAD DEBT CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 3 APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.2.17 THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 66 90 942/ - IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT CONSISTING OF TWO COMPONENTS. 5.2.17.1 BAD DEBTS OF RUPEES 13 02 182/ - IS ON ACCOUNT OF 'C USTOMER BALANCES' ALREADY SHOWN AS INCOME BY WAY OF SALES IN EARLIER YEARS. 5.2.17.2 THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF BAD DEBT ARE EXPLAINED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RUPEES 53 88 760/ - (M/S. SHAH ENGINEERS :.S.32 04 890/ - AND M/S TETRA TRACK RS.21 8 3 870/ - ) WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REFERRED FOR TAXATION IN EARLIER YEARS. THUS THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36 (1) (VII) IS TAKEN TO BE OF RUPEES 66 90 942. 5.2.17.2.A COMING TO THE SECOND PART OF RUPEES 53 88 760/ - AFTER HAVING BEEN OBSERVE D FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IT IS HELD THAT THE ELIGIBLE QUANTUM OF BAD DEBT WILL GET RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT THE DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME REMAINS UNRECOVERED. 5.2.17.2.B FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN APPEAL IT IS SEEN THAT OUT OF TOTAL DEBUT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE PAST THERE HAVE :5CN FOLLOWING RECOVERIES (IT IS HELD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY THING CONTRARY ON :~E RECORD THAT THE RECOVERIES ARE PERTAINING TO THE DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF ~:EREST INCOME CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE): (A) MESSER'S SHAH ENGINEERS : DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 32 04 890/ - RECOVERIES - RS. 26 37 064/ - BALANCE UNRECOVERED - RS. 5 67 826/ - (B) M/S. TETRA TRACK: DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 21 83 870/ - RECOVERIES - RS. 7 53 704/ - BALANCE UNRECOVERED - RS. 14 30 166/ - 5.2.18 AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT AND IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED VS. CIT (2010) 190 TAXMAN 391 (SC) T HE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS UNDER: BAD DEBT OF RUPEES 13 02 182/ - AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.2.17.1 ON ACCOUNT OF 'CUSTOMER BALANCES' ALREADY SHOWN AS INCOME BY WAY OF SALES IN EARLIER YEARS STANDS ALLOWED. RS.19 97 992/ - IS ALLOWE D AS BAD DEBTS BEING TOTAL OF THE UNRECOVERED BALANCES ON ACCOUNT OF DEBT REPRESENTING INTEREST INCOME OFFERED EARLIER FOR TAXATION AS MENTIONED IN PARA - 5.2.17.2.B ((A) RS. 5 67 826 AND (B) RS. 14 30 166). IN THE RESULT RS. 33 00 174/ - (RS.13 02 18 2 + RS.5 67 826+RS.14 30 166) HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS IN APPEAL AND BALANCE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBT OF RS.33 90 768/ - IS CONFIRMED. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 66 90 942/ - ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REA SONS FOR WRITING OFF THIS DEBT A S BAD ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 4 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE GUJAR A T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. DHAL ENTERPRISE S AND EQUIPMENT 207 ITR 719 (GUJ). WE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AMENDED PROVISION OF SECT ION 36(1)(VII) THAT W.E.F. 01.04.1989 THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEBT BECOME BAD IF IT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. WE HAVE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT AND THE DE CISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED V. CIT(2010) 190 TAXMANN 391(SC) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE S TO ITS SI S TER CONCERNS VIZ SH AH ENGINEERS & M/S. TETRA TRACT . T HE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS. 32 04 890/ - AND RS. 21 83 870/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 2002 TO 2002 - 2004. THE INTEREST IN COME W AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORE SAID YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED INTEREST OF RS. 26 37 064/ - OUT OF THE OUTSTANDING INTEREST OF RS. 32 04 890/ - FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. SHAH ENGINEERS AND INTEREST OF RS. 7 53 704/ - OUT OF THE OUTSTANDING INTEREST OF RS. 21 83 870/ - FROM TH E OTHER SISTER CONCERN M/S. TETRA TR ACT. THE ASSESSE HAD INCLUDED THE ABOVE INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. ( 26 37 064 + 7 53 704 ) IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE QUANTUM OF BAD DEBT TO THE EXTENT THE DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME REMAINS UNRECOVERED . TH EREFORE T HE TOTAL UNRECOVERABLE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE ABOVE OF RS. (5 67 826 + 14 30 166) RS. 19 97 992/ - ) AND THE ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 5 AMOUNT OF RS. 13 02 182/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CUSTOMER BALANCES WAS ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT BY THE LD. CIT(A) . AFTER CONSIDERING THE FORESAID FAC TS AND LEGAL FINDINGS WE COULD NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DECLINE WITH THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE . D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON L OANS TO ASSOCIATE CONCERN OF RS. 12 04 7 4 2/ - . 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN LOAN AND ADVANCES TO ITS SISTER CO NCERN S TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1 33 33 689/ - AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2007 BUT NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST. THE REFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHARGED NOTIONAL INTEREST @ 12% OF RS.16 00 763 ON THE BALANCE OF OUTSTANDING LOAN ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE ADVANCED TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS . 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12 04 742/ - AFTER EXCLUDING THE INTEREST CHARGED OF RS.1 56 262 ON THE CUSTOMER BALANCE REPRESENTING SALE MADE EARLIER YEAR OF RS. 13 0 2 182/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PART OF THE ADDITIO N ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS ON WHICH IT WAS PAYING INTEREST TO THE BANK. ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 6 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED A LOAN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AS SUPRA IN THIS ORDER OF RS. 1 3 3 39 689/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST ON THE ABOVE LOAN FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 TO 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED CHARGING INTEREST ON THE AFORE SAID LOAN ON THE REASONING THA T PRECEDING YEAR INTEREST W AS NOT RECOVERED. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCOUNTS IT CAME TO OUR NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED LOAN FROM THE BANKS AND FORWARDED THIS LOAN TO SISTER CONCERN FROM WHOM IT HAS NOT RECOGNIZED THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE GROUND THA T SISTER CONCERN HAS STOPPED PAYING ANY INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION I.E. TAKING LOAN FROM THE BANKS AND FORWARDING IT TO THE SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY WHETHER INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE LOAN S DEDUCTION FROM THE ACCOUNTS AND GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION OR NOT IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO? WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWIN G MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AGREED THAT SYSTEM WHILE RECOGNIZING THE INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS. IN THE PAST IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED INTEREST INCOME HOWEVER ON ACCOUNT OF ITS NON - REALIZATION ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBT OF THOSE INT EREST INCOMES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME AS BAD DEBT OF THE ASSESSEE OF THOSE INTEREST INCOMES HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE IN FURTH ER APPEAL. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 7 CHARGING INTEREST AND ACCOUNTING IT IN THE INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THIS IS NOT A SOUND ACCOUNTING POLICY AS AT OUTSET IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED THE SAME AS INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THEREAFTER WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE DEDUCTION OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBT WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED IN THESE YEARS. FURTHER WHEN WE VISUALIZE THIS SITUATION AS A WHOLE TRAVELING FROM THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS THEN IT IS OBSERVED THAT INTEREST INCOME WAS RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THEREAFTER CLAIMED AS A BAD DEBT OF ITS NON - REALIZATION THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A). IF WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE TO ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY HOLDING THAT INCOME IS TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THEREAFTER IT IS TO BE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT WHETHER ALLOWABLE OR NOT THEN TO OUR MIND IT WILL BE AN ACADEMIC AND FUTILE EXERCISE BECAUSE IN REALITY ASSSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INTEREST INCOME FROM ITS SISTER C ONCERN. IT IS TO BE RECOGNIZED THAT IN ALL THE AFORESAID THR EE YEARS THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS REMAINED UNRECOVERABLE WHICH WAS ALLOWED AS A BAD DEBT. THUS IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ACCORDINGLY . DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF GENERAL EXPENSES ON ESTIMATED BASIS 9 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 50 000/ - OUT OF GENERAL EXPENSES ON THE GROUND OF INADEQUACY OF EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 25 000/ - BY STATING THAT ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION AND MERELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTION AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY SUPP ORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES . IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BILLS VOUCHERS ETC. AND NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN UNACCOUNTED SALE EXPENDITURE ETC. THEREFORE WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF GENERAL EXPENSES TO RS.10 000/ - ONLY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. 10. G ROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4&5 ARE OF GENERAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE THEREFORE SAME ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 1 1 . THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL S FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS : - ITA NO. 836/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS TO ASSOCIATE CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 87 560/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.17 34 120/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT SPIRIT. ITA NO. 2627/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS TO ASSOC IATE CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 8 75 437/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT SPIRIT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND RELATING TO THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE I T ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 234B 234C AND 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. ITA NO. 562/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 9 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITIONS OF RS. 7 42 233/ - ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEEMED INTEREST ON THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE ASSOCIATE CONCERNS. 2.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE RESTRICTION OF THE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD AN D SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES OF THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 TO RS. 21 38 605/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPELLATE ORDERS FOR THE SAID YEAR. 3.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON ACTS HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 234B 234C AND 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 12. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL S EXCEPT GROUND OF APPEAL NUMBER 2 OF ITA NO. 562/AHD/2014 ARE IDENTICAL ARISING FROM THE SIMILAR FACT S THEREFORE OUR FINDINGS OF ADJUDICATION AS SUPRA MADE ON THE IM PUGNED ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO . 06/AHD/2011 WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . IN RESPECT OF GROUND OF APPEAL NUMBER 2 OF ITA NO .562/AHD/2014 WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AFTER GIV ING EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER . WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE AS PER LAW. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 27 - 11 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /11 /2017 ITA NOS. 836/AHD/2012 06 /AHD/2011 2627/AHD/2012 & 562/AHD/201 PAGE NO SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 10 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /