9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see - The AO has not mentioned anything on the merit of the addition on the basis of the additional documents submitted by the assessee - as there was no adverse comment of the AO on the bills of the parties filed before the CIT(A) on which the CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO, the CIT(A) deleted the additions - additional evidences were accepted by the CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A is also not correct as the CIT(A) has stated that the assessee did not have enough time in filing the required documents - Representative could not point out any error in this finding of the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. Disallowance out of transportation charges – Held that:- The disallowance was made by the AO on account of the difference between the bill amount (Rs.1,64,450/-) and charges paid (Rs.96,050/-) to M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service towards the expenses incurred for transportation - The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO and in the remand report, the AO merely stated that the additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) by way of bills M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service should not be admitted as they were additional evidences filed by the assessee - as there was no adve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer also noted that against the bill of ₹ 1,39,499/- raised by Innamul Huk, the assessee paid ₹ 1,05,221/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 3,11,785/-, i.e., bills of M/s. Gurukrupa Bricks and Rajshree Construction and differential amount in respect of bills of Innamul Huk. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed the copies of bills raised by M/s. Gurukrupa Bricks and Rajshree Construction. Further, regarding the difference between the bill amount and the amount paid to Innamul Huk, the assessee submitted that actual amount paid was debited in the books which was less than the bill amount; hence, no adverse inference was to be drawn. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer in the remand report called only stated that the additional evidences were filed before the CIT(A) which should not be admitted and confirmed the addition. The Assessing Officer has not stated anything adverse on the merits of the addition vis- -vis the additional documents submitted. 5. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 6. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-), M/s. Shree Ambica Cement Products (Rs.1,91,880/-) and M/s. Pooja Packaging (Rs.32,499/-). All these bills were debited in the Material Suppliers Expenses account and was claimed as deduction by the assessee. For non-furnishing of the bills, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,43,879/- to the income of the assessee. 10. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted three bills raised by of M/s. Shree Sahajanand Traders, M/s. Shree Ambica Cement Products and M/s. Pooja Packaging. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted that the additional evidences now filed before him should not be admitted and addition should be confirmed. The Assessing Officer did not made any comment on the merit of addition on the basis of the additional documents submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). 11. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 12. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A, whereas the AR of the assessee supporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bited in the books of accounts in respect of Sanjay Tempo Service and no adverse inference should be drawn. Copies of the bills raised by M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service were also filed before the CIT(A). 17. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer submitted in the remand report that the additional evidences which were filed now before him should not be admitted and the addition made should be confirmed. The Assessing Officer did not mention anything on the merit of the addition on the basis of the additional documents submitted before him. 18. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 19. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A, whereas the AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 20. We find that the disallowance of ₹ 68,400/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of the difference between the bill amount (Rs.1,64,450/-) and charges paid (Rs.96,050/-) to M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service towards the expenses incurred for transportation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 3,05,68,302/- as referred to by the Assessing Officer was infact the labour expenses incurred in relation to the employee labourers and since the payments made in relation to individual labourers was below the threshold limit, the same were not subjected to deduction of tax at source u/s 192 of the Act. It was also submitted that no lump-sum disallowance could have been made on the plea of non deduction of tax at source and any failure in deducting tax at source can only lead to disallowance u/s 40a(ia) and that too, if and only if there was a clear failure of TDS provisions and such failure is covered u/s 40a(ia). 24. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer who in the remand report requested the CIT(A) to enhance the disallowance from 8% as done by him in the assessment order to 20 to 25% in view of the same having been supported only by self-made vouchers. The Assessing Officer also mentioned about certain information received by him from his counter-part pointing out to certain bogus and fraudulent agreements which could lead to reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee, in the rejoinder to the remand report, reiterated the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no TDS was deducted on the same and hence, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. It was also submitted that no lump-sum disallowance could not have been made by the Assessing Officer for non-deduction of tax at source as because the disallowance could not have been made only with respect to the amount on which TDS was not deducted and it was covered u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer who requested the CIT(A) to enhance the disallowance from 8% to 20 to 25% on the ground that the payments were made by self-made vouchers only and also that information has been received from his counter-part that certain bogus and fraudulent agreements have been made by the assessee which will lead to re-opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act. 28. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that where the TDS provisions were not applicable no disallowance could be made by the Assessing Officer for any part of the corresponding expenditure. Further, the CIT(A) has given a finding that he has verified the books of account and the self-made vouchers as mentioned by the Assessing Officer and found that they were d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
