9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificates received during the financial year 2007-08 had been accounted for in the earlier years without verifying as to whether the said receipts are shown in the earlier years or not? 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in being too credulous for accepting the claim of the assessee that the entire amount of ₹ 91,84,558/- has been disclosed in the earlier years but there is nothing on record, except a sum of ₹ 16,02,300/- (considered by the ld. CIT(A) himself) to suggest that the respective receipts have been shown in the earlier years. 3. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of AO be restored. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WEORK INFRA (P) LTD. MUMBAI for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Against this work Agreement we have made expenses amounting to ₹ 46,23,880.00 and shown Net Income of ₹ 17,76,120.00 as Back office Support Income for the above noted year under Assessment. The copy of contract is attached. (ii) No Business with Punjab State Lottery, Chandigarh. We have not received ₹ 66,10,858/- as receipt from Director, Punjab State Lottery, Chandigarh. As on evidence we are enclosing Punjab Govt Letter No. 7634 dated 14.12.2010. The letter itself explains that TDS amounting to ₹ 1,22,384.00 relates to earlier years, not Assessment Year 2008-09. 4. The assessee also submitted the details of Back office support income and detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO in para 6 at pages 5 and 6 of the assessment order. The AO on going through the information was of the view that sum of ₹ 91,84,558/- was credited in the account of the assessee during the year under consideration instead of ₹ 66,10,858/-. In reply the assessee submits that it had not done any business of lotteries or purchase with Punjab Govt. Lotteries Department for the year under consideration and had not received any commission relating to Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee also furnished another communication in which it was pointed out that the commission is relatable to the draws in 2005 and the date of draws was during the financial year 2005-06. The AO rejecting the explanation of the assessee in this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate year. Further the amounts due to the assessee in respect of such scheme had been realized by the assessee from the running account with Director, Punjab State Lotteries and since the said amounts were sanctioned only later the TDS pertaining to such amount was also deducted accordingly in F.Y. 2007-08. It was thus claimed that the receipts pertaining to this TDS Rs. 1,22,384/- had been reflected in assessee's profit and loss account in earlier years but since no TDS was deducted because of delay in sanctioning the said amounts by Director, Punjab State Lotteries, the same was claimed later on receipt of the TDS certificate. It was thus pointed out the entire confusion has arisen because of unusual delay in sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,22,384/- was deducted out of certain receipts which related to the assessee. The claim of the assessee was that the above said receipts had been reflected and recorded in the financial year 2005-06 and even the TDS of ₹ 1,22,384/- had been claimed in Assessment Year 2006-07. The CIT(A) took note of the fact that the receipt pertaining to the said TDS of ₹ 1,22,384/- had been reflected in the assessee s profit and loss account in earlier years. The CIT(A) also noted that the receipts were in connection with the Bumper Draws and Monthly Draws relating to financial year 2005-06. 11. The CIT(A) also asked the assessee to produce evidence in respect of its claim of reflecting the income in the financial year 2005-06 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the claim of the appellant as detailed above. It is seen that the TDS of Rs. l,22,384/- has been duly claimed for assessment year 2006-07 though the same has been allowed at the time of final assessment u/s 143(3). In view of the above, the action of the AO in concluding that the assessee had not shown the income pertaining to the TDS deducted is erroneous in the facts of the case. As such the addition made is directed to be deleted. 13 Where the CIT(A) had verified the assessment record of the earlier years of the assessee and found that the receipt relating to TDS of ₹ 122,384/- had been declared and assessed in the hands of the assessee vide order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
