9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the addition when the AO himself has pointed out that there was wrong entry of some of the amount paid by cheque and amount paid by cash through vouchers were verified as per the books of accounts. Moreover, the ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO has not rejected the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of carting expenses. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 829/Ahd/2011, I.T.A. No. 878/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - Shri N. S. Saini And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri M.K. Patel, A.R. ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member : These cross-appeals by the Revenue and the Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- Gandhinagar, ( CIT(A) in short) dated 31/12/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. These appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Revenue s appeal in ITA No.829/Ahd/2011 for AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mments of the AO. The explanation of the assessee, the facts and my observations on them are as under: i) ₹ 1,52,571/- The assessee ha stated that it is actually Testing Charges paid by the assessee to the Department itself from whom the contracts were taken. The receipts shown in the P L account are net amount. Even if the gross amount was taken, the Testing Charges would have to be deducted as expenses. It does not affect the income of the assessee disclosed. The copies of the bills were produced before the AO, also. The AO has not commented on it and the contention of the assessee is correct. When the department from the gross payments made to the assessee has deducted the Testing Charges recoverable from it, and the assessee credits the net amount in the P L account, it does not affect the net income disclosed in any way. The difference of ₹ 1,52,571/- is treated as explained. ii) ₹ 36,447/- is actually excess amount shown by the assessee in the books of account and P L account. This does not require any explanation. The AO has not commented and the explanation is self-explanatory. iii) ₹ 2,39,576/- The assessee claimed that the Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the Revenue is rejected. 5. As a result, Revenue s appeal in ITA No.829/Ahd/2011 for AY 2004-05 is dismissed. 6. Now, we take up the Assessee s appeal in ITA No.878/Ahd/2011 for AY 2004-05. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (1) That on facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appelas0 has grievously erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,53,770/- on account of labour charges for repairing of vehicles. (2) That on facts and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,53,031/- on account of labour charges for repairing of vehicles, without giving adequate opportunity of cross-examination, etc. to the appellant. (3) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in rejecting the additional evidence sought to be filed u/r 46A of the I.T. Rules. (4) That on facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 12,31,000/- made on estimated basis @ 10% of total expenses for carting, without any cogent evidence on record. (5) The appellant craves leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were made. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that both the authorities below have given a finding on fact that the evidences as produced by the assessee were not inspiring confidence and were found to be ingenuine. This finding of the authorities below is not controverted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below, same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of assessee s appeal is also rejected. 10. Ground Nos.3 4 are inter-connected which relate to the rejection of filing of additional evidence and confirmation of the disallowance of carting charges on estimated basis. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) in arbitrary manner did not allow the assessee to place on record the additional evidences. He submitted that the AO had made disallowance of carting charges on the basis that the assessee could not furnish the detailed addresses, PANs, confirmations, bills/vouchers, etc. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not taken into account the remand repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of expenses might be not genuine since the assessee has not filed detailed addresses, confirmations, vouchers, bills, etc. in respect of the same and the carting charges remained unverified. Therefore, out of carting expenses, a sum of ₹ 12,31,000/- are disallowed on estimate basis which are nearly 10% of the total expenditure on carting. 11.1. During the course of appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) has sought for the remand report. In the remand report, the AO has observed as under:- 4) Carting charges of ₹ 12,31,000/- Break-up of the carting charges submitted by the assessee, it is found that total debit side of the carting expenses is ₹ 1,23,35,232/-. It is found that out of that material wrongly debited to carting is (Rs.34,44,203 + ₹ 48,036/-). The amount as per profit and loss account, the carting is ₹ 84,03,989/- but not ₹ 1,23,35,232/-. The break up given as per page 8 of paper book is found correct as per audit report. Out of carting charge ₹ 84,03,989/- assessee has paid by cheque of ₹ 25,83,518/- and remaining amount of ₹ 58,65,471/- has been paid by cash by vouchers. Vouchers have been verified as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
