9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sites. Therefore, no error in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the said addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- because it was not a payment to the third party but only a remittance by the head office to the branch office. As regards the disallowance of cash payments of Rs. 13,69,540/-, no dispute that the work was being carried out at about 80 sites and details of which have been given by the assessee - Out of the total payments of Rs. 2,19,02,968/- the payment of Rs. 2,06,96,216/- was made through cheques therefore, about 95% of the payments on account of expenditure at the contract sites were made through cheques and only 5% of the payments was made in cash. Keeping in view of the number of sites and the locations of the sites as well as natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge of ACIT-10(2), Mumbai. It appears that the representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings till 20.9.2006 when the case was adjourned to 28.9.2006 on the request of the assessee for filing further details. The AO mentioned in the assessment order that neither anybody attended nor submissions were submitted by the assessee despite the final show case notice issued by the AO on 13.12.2006 for filing various details etc. Finally for want of details sought by the AO the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The AO made various addition and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,09,73,220/-. On appeal before CIT(A), the assessee filed an application for admission of additional e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the AO commented the genuineness of the claim was not acceptable. Accordingly, the AO propose for sustainability of disallowance. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of the cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- by noting the fact that the said amount represents the amounts sent/remitted by the assessee itself to its Branch Office at Chennai. As regards the cash payment of Rs. 13,69,540/- the CIT(A) though agreed with the remand report that the assessee failed to produce necessary bill/vouchers however, it noted that the assessee claimed that TDS was duly deducted on these payments and the cash payments were on account of business necessities. Accordingly, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of cash payment of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- as alleged by the AO. The said amount represents various sums remitted to company s account with State Bank of India, Chennai Brach. He has referred the Bank statement of the said account and submitted that there was no such single payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- as alleged. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 63,69,540/- by considering the cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- with narration CPCL Paramount cash payment-Head Office and the cash payment of Rs. 13,69,540/- to various persons. As it is apparent from the record that the cash payments of Rs. 50,00,000/- is not a payment made by the assessee to the parties on account of sub-contract payments but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue. 7. Ground No. 2 regarding deletion of disallowance on account of cash purchases and unexplained outstanding expenses. The AO noted from the details of purchase that an amount of Rs. 82,89,125/- had been shown with the narration cash purchases at various sites. Similarly, Rs. 54,00,168/- had been shown with the narration outstanding expenses. In the absence of bills/vouchers the AO disallowed these amounts and added to the total income of the assessee. During the remand proceeding the assessee submitted that there is double addition as regard the outstanding expenses of Rs. 54,00,168/- because the same was already part of the total purchase of Rs. 82,89,125/-. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture. He has further submitted that the AO has considered the facts of Rs. 54,00,168/- was part of the total cash purchase of Rs. 82,89,125/- and accordingly no disallowance is called for as regards Rs. 54,00,168/-. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the relevant record we find that the assessee took stand in the remand proceedings that the outstanding expenses of Rs. 54,00,168/- is part of Rs. 82,89,125/- and therefore, there was double addition of this amount. However, neither the AO has commented in the remand report nor the CIT(A) has given specific finding on this fact. This is a factual aspect which requires to be verified before giving specific finding on this issue. Since, the relevant details have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
