The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 v. Shri Dhanji V. Gala

1 IT APPEAL NO.3222-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3222 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-18 ..Appellant Vs. Shri Dhanji V. Gala..Respondent Mr. P. S. Sahadevan for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM :V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATE :20[th] September, 2010 P.C. 1Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None for the Respondent2Perused Appeal 3The question is raised as to Whether the Tribunal was right to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the additional of Rs.36,45,324/- even though the assessee failed to prove any commercial expediency in making interests free advances. The Tribunal has discussed this issue in detail, taking into account the factual circumstances of the case. The relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow: “There is nothing produced before us to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). The assessee had filed copies of accounts of all the parties before the Assessing Officer who had made no enquiries nor gathered any material to controvert the claim of the assessee. It has been held by the 2 IT APPEAL NO.3222-09 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) that in case money had been advanced interest free to group concerns on commercial expediency, disallowance of interest proportionate to the sum advanced cannot be made even if the advances had been made from borrowed funds. Most of the advances / deposits (Rs.2.50 crores) had been made on commercial expediency. As regards the balance sum of about Rs.53 lacs, CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee had taken interest free loan of Rs.49.83 lacs in addition to own interest free capital of Rs.34.51 lacs at the end of the year which was also available for making interest free advances. This finding has not been controverted before us. Therefore, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances we see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition and the same is upheld.” 4 4Having seen the extracted portion and findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to hold that it is a perverse order. The view taken is a reasonable and plausible view. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial questions of law with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]