9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt the method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee, therefore, the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on account of TDS deducted from the supplies made - Held that:- In the present case, it appears that the assessee could not furnish the relevant details before the authorities below regarding the inclusion of the receipts amounting to ₹ 77,78,724/- in the total sales of ₹ 2,29,42,663/-. It also appears that the certificate issued by the East Central Railway, Hajipur relating to wrong deduction of the TDS was not considered by the AO as well as by the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the AO to verify as to whether the total receipts of ₹ 77,78,724/- from the Railway had been included by the assessee in the gross sales and the TDS was wrongly deducted, if the aforesaid facts as claimed by the assessee were found to be correct then no addition is called for. Accordingly, this issue is set aside to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 81,468/-, being the TDS deducted from the supplies made to East Central Railways, treating as contract, instead of supplied to Railways, and the entire sale of ₹ 77,78,724/- have been accounted for by the assessee as sales, in its Books of Accounts and, therefore, merely, because tax at source has been deducted by Railways, it does not become additional sale. 6. That the disallowance, out of Interest paid to partners amounting to ₹ 65,540/- is uncalled for and not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and therefore the disallowance be deleted. 7. That the entire Books of Accounts, including Bills, excise records, sales tax records, etc. have been made available and the so-called difference in the sales, alleged by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is imaginary and on account of the fact that he has neither understood nor enquired into this alleged difference in the sales. 8. That, without prejudice to the above, no opportunity, whatsoever, has been given before making the huge addition and, therefore, the Order is against the law of justice and need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imaginary figure of the sales. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 9. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO worked out the figures of sales by adding the Gross Profit in the figure of the sales shown by the assessee. However, he had not rejected the books of accounts and also accepted all other components of the Trading Account i.e. the opening closing stock and the purchases Gross Profit. He only doubted the sales figure which was worked out by him by adding the Gross Profit separately in the sales disclosed by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the sales value always includes the profit which cannot be added again for working out the figure of the sale. In our opinion the AO was not justified while adding the Gross Profit again in the sales already disclosed by the assessee and in making the impugned addition. In the present case, it is also noticed that the AO neither rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81,468/- was deducted by the East Central Railway, Hajipur, therefore, the credit was claimed for the said amount on account of tax deducted at source. It was further submitted that the TDS was wrongly deducted by the railways from the supply bills (a reference was made to page no 50 of the assessee s paper book which is the copy of clarification dated 23.08.2011 regarding deduction of tax issued by the East Central Railway, Hajipur). It was accordingly submitted that the TDS which was wrongly deducted by the Railway was claimed by the assessee but there was no difference in the figures of the sales, as such the disallowance made by the AO was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the same. 15. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the assessee could not furnish the relevant details before the authorities below regarding the inclusion of the receipts amounting to ₹ 77,78,724/- in the total sales of ₹ 2,29,42,663/-. It also appears that the certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 14,05,054/- 14,33,282/- 5. Ms Sudha Maheshwary 1,02,159/- 1,02,160/- Total 22,08,021/- 22,28,877/- 19. the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee did not submit the full capital account of the partners even though the same was specifically asked, so it was difficult to understand as to why the assessee had not apportioned the loss to the partners of the firm and had not reduced the credit balance of the partners in the respective capital accounts which would have given a clear balance sheet about the net of the capital of the firm. He further observed that the assessee had deliberately shown the loss of the firm on the debit side of the balance sheet without reducing/disturbing the capital accounts of the partners of the assessee firm. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that when the explanation of the assessee was asked during the course of assessment proceedings as to why the loss was not apportioned to the respective partners, the assessee explained th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
