9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and the appellant. In favour of assessee. Difference in capital a/c - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Force in the arguments of assessee that there cannot be made any addition because only the balance was reflected in the firms capital a/c whereas in the proprietary capital account two separate entries shown. These copies were furnished by appellant during the course of assessment proceedings too. Hence explanation furnished by the appellant is correct and the mistakes are bonafide and feasible one. Thus, the impugned addition is deleted in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In favour of assessee. Addition on account of alleged unexplained cash credit - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Rs.2,50,000 on acocunt of difference in capital a/c by admitting additional evidences without remanding the matter back to the file of AO for verification in contravention to the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting an addition of Rs.2,98,582 on account of unexplained cash credits by admitting loan confirmations from assessee without calling for remand report from AO in contravention to the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting an addition of Rs.50,000 made by AO by admitting additional evidence in the form of ocnfirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all. Besides this, the labour charges of Rs.4,79,026 includes the major chunk of purchases also. Therefore, in the absence of clear finding of fact, it cannot be presumed that the payments to first five parties mentioned in the table in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order are made in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and the appellant. Hence it is held that no TDS is required in the hands of the appellant while paying these amounts. Accordingly the impugned addition of Rs.5,79,026 is deleted out of Rs.7,73,462. As far as payment to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation is concerned, I find that TDS has been done by the appellant but not paid within the stipulated time. Hence the impugned addition of Rs.1,94,436 is upheld u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative that there cannot be made any addition because only the balance was reflected in the firms capital a/c whereas in the proprietary capital account two separate entries shown. These copies were furnished by appellant during the course of assessment proceedings too. Hence I am of the considered opinion that the explanation furnished by the appellant is correct and the mistakes are bonafide and feasible one. Thus, the impugned addition is deleted in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case". 6. After considering the rival contentions and examining the facts, we find that no case is made out by the Revenue to differ from the above findings. Accordingly the ground is rejected. 7. Ground No.3 pertains to addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the findings of the CIT (A) as the same amount was brought to tax by AO under different a/c. Since these facts were examined by the CIT (A), we reject the ground. 9. The last ground is with reference to the addition of Rs.50,000. Assessee has shown a loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs from one Mr.Sanjay Surana whereas the loan confirmation submitted by assessee was only for Rs.2,50,000. AO brought the difference of Rs.50,000 taxed as unexplained cash credit. It was explained that the unsecured loan was more than 3 years old and Shri Sanjay Surana has confirmed the loan of Rs.2,50,000 and balance of Rs.50,000 was also confirmed to AO subsequently, who did not accept the same. Since the said Shri Sanjay Surana shifted his premises there was delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed liabilities can be treated to have been ceased within the meaning of section 4191) of the I.T. Act. Hence I find force in the arguments and submissions of the learned Counsel that no addition could have been made under section 4191) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is deleted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. (Relief: Rs.50,000)". 10. After considering the rival submissions, we uphold the order of the CIT (A). As rightly noticed by the CIT (A), the credit does not pertain to the year and there is no cessation of liabilities during the year so as to bring the amounts under the provisions of section 41(1). The Revenue has not made out any case why the same is taxable as income. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
