9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40A(ia) - assessees submission that he deducted tax at source and remitted the same to the government on 27.5.2005 i.e. before 31.5.2005 - Held that:- As per the provisions of Rule 30(1)(b)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1862, the tax deducted at source in question is required to be paid within two months from the last day of the Accounting year i.e. on or before 31.5.2005. Thus the remittance was within time. Hence dismiss this ground of Revenue. Disallowance of the expenses - Held that:- AO has without asking for details disallowed in an adhoc manner the above said expenses. D.R. could not controvert the factual findings of the CIT(A). In favour of assessee. - ITA no. 3019/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2013 - Shri I. C. Sudhir, J.M. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not ascertainable as to for what purpose the balance amount was incurred and to what extent it was incidental to the business of the assessee. Therefore, the AO has disallowed Rs.23,72,357/-, being 30% of the amount in excess of job charges, as not 'incidental' to and not incurred for the purpose of business. The assessee deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,458/- by way of TDS on contract work on 27.5.2005. In the account of M/s Lakhani Shoe Company Pvt.Ltd. the amount of Rs.46,35,478/- was credited as per the bill raised by the assessee on 31.3.2005 but the payments were made through out the year to the extent of Rs.80,20,972/-. The AO held that the payments so made to contractor company required deduction of tax at source at the time of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.49,77,476/- on account of unverifiable expenses in disregard of the fact that the assessee had not maintained the prescribed register for the business and failed to produce the same. 4. That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 4. We have heard Ms.Shumana Sen, the Ld.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.M.K.Madan, Ld.C.A. on behalf of the assessee. 5. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the papers on record as well as the orders of the authorities below and case laws cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which in fact were on account of excise duty paid by the job worker on behalf of the appellant, amounts to disallowance of excise duty which is patently wrong. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making such disallowance in these facts of appellant's case. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed as follows. The fact remains that Lakhani Shoe Co.Pvt.Ltd. has declared positive income as against the loss declared by the appellant. However, this is not the reasoning of the AO while making the disallowance. The AO has not invoked the provisions of s.40A(2) of the Act but has disallowed the expenses only on the ground of being not verifiable and not incidental to the business of the appellant. Such observations of the AO are out of the contex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his order observed as follows. "10. The assessee is in the business of excisable products. It is essential to maintain the excise records in case of purchase, sale, job work etc. As discussed above, the assessee is not maintaining any of these registers. In the absence of any raw material inwards and consumables inwards registers (which are with the contractor company only) and the prescribed excise registers in form no.ER-1, ER-2, D-3/job work register etc., it is not ascertainable what are the material purchased, the consumables utilized and retained in closing stock. Therefore, the expenses booked by the assessee are not verifiable. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to produce wages register etc. also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o did not produce wages register etc. Therefore, as mentioned in para 5 of this order against ground no.4, the AO made several disallowances." 11. The contentions of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal was that: a) Details of raw material was submitted before the Ld.AO; b) Copies on various bills have been produced before him; c) The AO has not raised any question, nor asked any further evidence or even raised a doubt in respect of the details submitted by the assessee and in an adhoc manner disallowed the expenditure which came as a surprise to the assessee. d) Details of personal expenses, salary register etc. have been furnished. e) Details of manufacturing expenses have been furnished before the Ld.AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
