9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we consider the same, we find that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, we hold that the order passed by learned CIT u/s 263 is not maintainable. We, therefore, quash the order passed by learned CIT. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.276/LKW/2015 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Dr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, C.I.T., D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. This is assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly dated 19/03/2015 for the assessment year 2010-2011 u/s 263 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary proof were filed and that on merit no addition at all is sustainable on the issues raised in order passed u/s 263 and thus the order being devoid of merit passed on notions, conjectures and surmises may kindly be ordered to be vacated. IV. That while passing the present order the Ld. CIT was not at all justified in holding that there is a difference in TDS as shown by the assessee and as per TDS certificate whereas there is no difference at all in the same and the figure is duly tallied and thus there is no excess as claimed by the Ld. CIT. V. While holding that an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- has been paid to Thekedar which attracts the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act the Ld. CIT was misguided by the fact that Shri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the present case the Ld. CIT was not at all justified in holding that AO has not examined all payable expenditure as Sundry Debtors are shown at an amount of ₹ 7,50,035/- whereas Expenses payable has been shown at an amount of ₹ 15,17,395/- as on 31-03-2010 and choosing to ignore the fact that the expenses payable also includes in it amount payable to labour, professional charges, salary etc. and that there is no discrepancy in the figure so shown and disclosed. IX. While calculating the total receipts the Ld. CIT again grossly erred on facts in stating that there is a difference in amounts received in banks and the total contract receipts as per Form No. 16A as the entire receipts were duly explained through a cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be deducted u/s 194C of the Act, it was explained that this amount is paid in respect of supply of Mitti and Balu and therefore, no TDS was deductible for purchase of goods. 4. Regarding the third objection of learned CIT, he submitted that the relevant para of the statement is available on pages 19 20 of the paper book and it can be seen that on 31/03/2010, the closing balance is ₹ 10,95,203/-. 5. Regarding the 4th objection of learned CIT that an amount of ₹ 1,28,190/- was received from Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Kheri on 22/04/2009 but is not part of total receipt, it was explained before learned CIT that this amount was received by the assessee on 30/03/2009 and it was deposited in bank on the same d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT should establish that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and since learned CIT could not make out his case, his order should be quashed. 8. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the order passed by learned CIT u/s 263 after reproducing various allegations as per notice issued by him u/s 263, learned CIT has mentioned in para 4 of his order that the assessee has filed written submissions along with the enclosures, which is placed on file and thereafter, he decided the issue as per para 5 of his order, which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 5. I have gone through the submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
