(Per : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 11.6.2010 proposing following question for our consideration:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.13,69,624/- made by the Assessing Officer ?"
The short question that has arisen in this appeal is with regard to disallowance of interest of Rs.13,69,624/- made by the Assessing Officer. CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the ground that there is no cogent or direct evidence placed by the Revenue to demonstrate that the borrowed funds were diverted towards advance to relatives and secondly it was also not demonstrated that the borrowed funds were actually not utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee. When challenged before the Tribunal, it upheld the findings of the CIT(A) by saying that once it is proved in its entirety that the amount was used for the purpose of commercial expediency, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1) would take care of the issue. Moreover, considering all the facts and circumstances, it found no reason to disturb the findings of the CIT(A).
Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt for the Revenue, we find that the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) would apply in the facts of the present case. There is no fallacy in the order of the Tribunal which requires interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) (vjn) Top