9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – Decided against the Revenue. Addition of Rs. 1,12,80,134/- on account of non filing of details of TDS – Held that:- TDS was deposited with the prescribed time and thus there was no case of disallowance under 40(a)(ia) - Learned D.R. could not controvert the above findings nor could bring any contrary material on record – Decided against the Revenue. Disallowance of Rs. 2,05,936/- - Assessee has incurred various expenses in cash - Assessee could not produce the vouchers, A.O. made an ad-hoc disallowance of 25% of Rs. 3,43,228/- and added to the income – Held that:- 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 - Restricted the disallowance to 10 % of such expenditure – Decided against the Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2306/AHD/2010 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2013 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri O. P. Batheja, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri M. K. Patel, A. R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A. M. 1. This appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the balance sheet noticed that Assessee had shown sundry creditors of Rs. 62,97,788/-. Since the details submitted by the Assessee was incomplete the addresses, PAN Numbers or creditworthiness of the parties was not proved, Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and added to the income. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5. 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 which were also filed before me. It can be clearly made out from the copies of submission made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings that confirmations were submitted to the file of the AO. The AO had failed to explain why such confirmations produced at the time of assessment proceedings were not considered while passing assessment order. If doubted the AO could have called for confirmation directly from trade creditors. It is seen from the Schedule 8 of the balance sheet that there are sundry creditors to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses the balances included opening balance in respect of purchases made during earlier years. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the Assessee had filed confirmations before Assessing Officer and had also furnished copies of ledger accounts. He has further noted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the purchases made by the Assessee from the aforesaid parties. He has further giving a finding that the trade creditors were from purchases and full set off of purchase bills were produced before Assessing Officer. The ld. D.R. could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. In vies of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus this ground is dismissed. Ground no. 2 is with respect to addition of Rs. 26,03,728/- on account of capital introduction by the partners. 9. Assessing Officer noticed that in case of Shri Jaswantbhai Patel and Shri Kalpesh Patel, the partners of the firm, there was capital introduction of Rs. 13,09,364/- and 12,94,364/- resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore Assessing Officer and had also filed copies of the returns of income and financial statements. He therefore submitted that since the Assessee has fully explained the introduction of funds by the partners, no addition could be made in the hands of the firm. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the Assessee had furnished more than sufficient evidence to explain the source of funds introduced by the partners and had also furnished the copy of PAN numbers, Capital account, Balance sheet and returns of income. He further noted that when cash is introduced into partners firm and if the partners are unable to explain the source of funds, in the assessment proceedings of the firm, no addition can be made in the hands of firm but the addition can be made in the hands of individual partner. 13. Before us, the learned D.R. could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) nor could it bring any contrary material on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus this ground of Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been paid within the prescribed time which includes the closing balance of TDS payable of Rs.72,470/- which was paid on 30th April, 2007. In nut shell the tax deducted in respect of labour payments have been paid within the prescribed time under the Act. Therefore, there is no case of any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). This is also supported from the Tax Audit Report under section 44AB of the Act wherein against the amounts inadmissible under section 40(a), the auditors have certified Nil amount. There is no qualification by the tax auditors in respect of TDS deducted and paid under section 40(a) of the Act. In view of this finding of the fact, the assessing officer was not justified in disallowing labour payments of Rs. 1,12,80,034/- on the ground that TDS returns were not filed. The disallowance, is therefore deleted. 15. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. Before us, the ld. D.R. supported the order of Assessing Officer and further submitted that Assessee, CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). The ld. A.R. on the other hand submitted that the entire details of TDS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
