9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CIT(A) set aside and the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of salary paid – Held that:- The assessee has not been able to place any evidence on record to justify that Ms. Sonal Bhatt was actively working for the firm save and except placing on record five/six vouchers stated to be signed by her for approving the payments - each voucher is of less than Rs.100/- and only one the voucher is of Rs.1,000 – assessee contended that Ms. Sonal Bhatt is MBA and also one of the partner in the firm as per deed of partnership – order set aside and the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.2261/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the said details to the Assessing Officer for comments. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that the Assessing Officer submitted his remand report and made the observations, which are stated by ld. CIT(A) at pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order. It is stated by the Assessing Officer in his remand report that in respect of labour charges, assessee deducted TDS on amount of Rs.87,34,466/-. That the assessee showed expenses amounting to Rs.33,80,741/- on imprest system but did not provide proof regarding the same and TDS was not deducted on the above. That for the rest of labour charges, vouchers produced were self made. That most of the expenses were made in cash and accordingly genuineness of such could not be fully verified. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash he used to pay this money to labourers. The rest of the labour charges of Rs.617,792/- were claimed to be less than Rs.20,000/- to various parties for which only self made vouchers were produced which are not verifiable, so the TDS liability cannot be ascertained on such expenses .. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that Shri Kailashnath Dhuria also confirmed the receipt of the payments and the same is also marked in the bank statement of the assessee. The assessee contended that the payments in cash were made due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances and submitted that clauses (g), (j) and (k) of Rule 6DD apply and therefore no disallowance be made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that the Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has not examined the same and disallowed the payment of total amount paid to Shri Kailashnath Dhuria including the payments made by the bank entries as well as account payee cheques. He submitted the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) is required to be made. The Ld. DR submitted that he has no objection to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer as Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and the ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. We have considered submissions of ld. Representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We find merits in the contention of ld AR. We observe t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2,00,000/- towards salary paid to Ms. Sonal Bhatt on the ground that the assessee stated before him as under Ms. Sonal Bhatt is the sister of partner was not doing any activity in the firm . The assessee disputed the said disallowance before the ld. CIT(A). 11. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that Ms. Sonal Bhatt was assisting the work of the firm. That assessee filed some vouchers which were signed by Ms. Sonal Bhatt to support the submission. The Ld. CIT(A) asked remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the remand report observed that such vouchers does not bear numbers. Therefore, the genuineness of the same is doubtful. 12. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that the genuineness of the vouchers are doub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Ms. Sonal Bhatt. The AR also admitted that no details have been filed by the assessee for the service rendered by her save and except of placing in the paper book, some vouchers stated to be signed by her. However, ld. AR submitted that Ms. Sonal Bhatt worked for the firm and said disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- toward payments to Ms. Sonal Bhatt is not justified. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 14. We have considered submissions of ld. representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. It is a fact that the assessee has not been able to place any evidence on record to justify that Ms. Sonal Bhatt was actively working for the firm save and except placing on record five/six vouchers stated to be signed by her for approving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
