9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer. (3) It is therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 19/12/2006, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made additions/disallowances. The AO made addition amounting to Rs. 14,54,520/- on account of difference in TDS certificates. The AO made disallowance of the labour charges of Rs. 3,53,770/- as claimed on account of repairing of vehicles and also made disallowance of R.4,55,031/- claimed as expenditure on repair of vehicles. Further, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 12,31,000/- being 10% of the expenditure claimed on carting charges. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 14,54,520/- on account of difference in TDS certificates. However, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the rest of the additions. Now, both the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te issued originally. Considering the above, the difference has been reconciled. However, the AO is directed to withdraw any extra TDS credit given to the assessee after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. iv) Rs. 8,73,055/- The assessee claimed that the Authority issuing TDS certificate has wrongly mentioned the amount as Rs. 20,25,366/- and the Authority in its letter dated 9/12/2009 has issued a clarification that the current amount paid was Rs. 11,52,311/-. Thus, the difference is reconciled. The AO in his remand report has accepted that the difference is explained. v) Rs. 5,79,900/- and Rs. 34,470/- The assessee claimed that the work was actually done in April, 2004. The contract income was shown and TDS deducted was claimed by the assessee rightly in FY 2004-05 i.e. for the return of AY 2005-06. The TDS was deducted by the Authority wrongly in FY 2003-04 and a clarification letter has been issued by the Authority dated 9/12/2009. It also contended that the AO himself has given credit for the TDS in the next year. The AO has accepted the explanation regarding Rs. 5,79,900/- and no comments have been made regarding the explanation on Rs. 34,470/-. Once the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pairs was carried out. He submitted that the vouchers had been placed on record. He submitted that under these facts, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the additions. 6.2. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is a categorical finding by the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim and the person who was produced was bogus and even the person was not knowing such kind of repairing-work has been carried out by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the authorities below have given a finding on fact which is not controverted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Moreover, the assessee has not placed any evidence on record proving the nature of repairs on vehicles carried out by the assessee and even no description of the vehicles is given. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is upheld. Thus, this ground of assessee's appeal is rejected. 8. Second ground is against in confirming the addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find that the AO had made disallowance by observing as under:- "7. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed gross carting charges of Rs. 1,23,15,787/- some of them were paid on account by bills and the remaining amount were paid in cash. The details of such expenditure are furnished in Annexure-A which is made part of this order. Vide order sheet entry dated 15/9/2006, the assessee was asked to furnish detailed addresses, permanent account numbers, confirmations etc. in respect of bills exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs. The assessee was also asked to file detailed addresses of remaining parties with a request to produce bills, vouchers, etc. on the next hearing, i.e. 5/10/2005. The assessee, however, failed to attend the hearing fixed on 5/10/2006. Next hearing was fixed on 7/11/2006 on which date partner Shri Ramjibhai attended but no books of accounts and other documents were produced. Therefore, hearing on 7/11/2006 could not actually took place and accordingly one more adjournment was granted to the assessee for 14/11/2006 with a specific warning that more than sufficient time has been allowed and no further adjournment will be granted. It was also specifically aske ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
