9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,97,788/- made by the A.O. on account of the sundry creditors after admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the creditors before the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,03,728/- made on account of the unexplained capital introduction made in cash after admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not explain the source or genuineness of the same. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,12,80,134/- on account of non filing of details of TDS, after admitting additional evidence without affording opportunity to the AO to examine the same in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffered by him is not satisfactory, the sum of credited may be charged as income of the assessee for the previous year. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished details as called for by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has taken a contrary view that the details were not submitted in spite of several reminders. This view of the assessing officer is inconsistent with facts available on records. The assessing officer has not dealt with the letters of the assessee dated 16.12.2009, 21.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 filed before him during the course of assessment proceedings. The trade creditors were from purchases made by the appellant. Full set of purchase bills was produced by the appellant during assessment proceedings. Hence the contention of the AO that detailed address of trade creditors was not submitted is erroneous. There is force in the submission of the appellant that when the book result of the appellant is accepted and no flaw found by the AO in the purchases of the appellant, there cannot be any addition regard to the trade creditors. Hence I delete the addition of Rs. 62,97,988/- made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Revenue is now in appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re furnished along with copies of their balance-sheets and P&L accounts and acknowledgment of the returns of income filed by them during the year under consideration, had all been filed. Therefore, the AO was not justified in simply dismissing such evidence and treating the funds introduced by the partners as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the Assessee firm. 9.1 Most importantly, it has to be accepted and understood that no addition could be made in the hands of the firm, of the sums introduced by the partners, as unexplained cash credits. If at all any addition was to be made, it could only be made in the hands of the individual partners, where they could be called upon to explain the source of such funds, and action could be taken accordingly, under the Act. It has been held by various courts and Tribunals that when cash is introduced into a partnership firm, and if the partners are unable to explain the source of such funds in assessment proceedings of the firm, no addition can be made of such sums as unexplained cash credits under the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act in the hands of the firm. The addition of the sum of Rs. 26,03,728/- will therefore, stand dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings and copies of TDS challans and forms submitted to my office during appellate proceedings. It can be clearly made out from the copies of submission made by the appellant during assessment proceedings that copies of TDS challan and other details related to TDS were submitted to the file of the AO. I fail to understand why the AO did not take the same on record. There is no reason to disbelieve the TDS challan as produced before the A.O. during assessment proceedings. The AO merely observed, that copies of TDS return were not filed but remained silent about the fact that TDS was duly deducted and return of TDS filed by the appellant. Relevant portion of Sec 40(a)(ia): ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction has not been paid during the previous year, or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of Rs. 2,05,936/-. 17. A.O. noticed that Assessee has incurred various expenses in cash. According to the Assessing Officer, since the Assessee could not produce the vouchers, he made an ad-hoc disallowance of 25% of Rs. 3,43,228/- and added to the income. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), CIT(A) granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 15. I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the submission of the appellant. I have also gone through the copies of submission made by the appellant during assessment proceedings. It can be inferred that the appellant was unable to produce full set of vouchers for the expenditure during assessment proceedings. Therefore the AO was right in disallowing a part such expenditure. But 25 % disallowance for such expenditure is according to me on the higher side. Hence I restrict the disallowance to 10 % of such expenditure. Thus the appellant get a relief of Rs.2,81,706. 18. Before us, the ld. D.R. supported the order of Assessing Officer. On the other hand the ld. A.R. supported the order of CIT(A). 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
