9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the fact that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS at the time of payment /credit of the expenses towards JCB. 2. deleting the addition made on account of disallowance out of commissioner expenses of Rs. 50,000/- without appreciating the fact that these expenses have been debited through internally prepaid vouchers and no supporting evidences have been furnished as to for what purpose of commission has been paid. 3. deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 72,600/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions have not been proved by the assessee." 2 Vide Ground No.1, the grievance of the Department relates to the deletio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in his remand report had stated that no payment was outstanding as on 31/03/2009 and the entire payments on account of JCB charges were paid before 31/03/2009. Now the Department is in appeal. 5. Learned D.R. strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer while learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that no TDS was outstanding and payable at the time of the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It is also noticed that a proviso to sub-clause (ia) of clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT (supra), do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the Department on this issue. 7. Next issue vide Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer out of commission expenses. 8. Facts relating to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 89,300/- under the head 'commission'. The Assessing Officer was of the view that those expenses were incurred in cash on the basis of internal vouchers. He therefore, disallowed Rs. 50,000/- out of those expenses. 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not incurred for the business purpose. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We do not see any merit in this ground of the Departmental appeal. 12. Next issue vide Ground No.3 relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 72,600/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act. 13. Facts relating to this issue, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, noticed that the assessee had introduced unsecured loan of Rs. 6,32,300/-. In support of this, the assessee filed the confirmations and affidavits of the creditors to prove the identity. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce all the 12 creditors. The assessee produced 8 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompel them for doing so. Moreover, the mere fact that the assessee could not produce the creditors before the Id. AO could not be detrimental to the assessee's claim, which is a settled proposition of law, especially when the assessee was able to furnish full identity of the creditors. 04. Since the repayment was made from the known sources, there is no question of any unexplained credits. 05. It is further submitted that as per the Indian Evidence Act, the transactions appearing in regular books of account should be treated as genuine unless and until there are corroborative material or other evidences to rebut the same. In light of the above, addition made u/s 68 deserves to be deleted." 15. The learned CIT(A), after considering the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the identity of the creditors were proved. He also accepted eight creditors out of 12 creditors which were produced before him however, he did not make any enquiry in respect of those creditors whom the assessee failed to produce before the Assessing Officer although the identity was not doubted. We therefore, are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition when the creditors disclosed their particulars and confirmed that they have given loan to the assessee in their duly sworned affidavits. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this ground of the Departmental appeal.
19. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 09th September .2014) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
