Case Law Details
Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee contended that the impugned amounts were taken for the purpose of business activities of the company and the advance of Rs.14,44,730/- from M/s. Rustogi Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.3,35,38,660/- from M/s. Rustogi Projects Private Limited and the same was received as business advances. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has entered into MOUs with the above mentioned companies and stated that these advances was given to the assessee for purchase of properties. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s case will not be covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and prayed for filing of the additional evidences, pertaining to the claim of the assessee. The ld. AR also contended that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to file evidence, pertaining to the addition made on account of disallowance of interest, which according to the assessee was utilized for the purpose of business and that in subsequent years it has also been repaid to the creditors.
The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, controverted the assessee’s contention that these funds were utilized for business purpose and not for purchase of property and vehemently opposed for admission of additional evidences which is filed during the proceeding of the second appellate stage.
Having heard the rival submission and perused the materials on record. We deem it fit to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to furnish additional evidences before the A.O. to substantiate the claim of the assessee on the principles of natural justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
