9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the claim of expenditure. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Addition on unexplained creditors - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the A.O. We also find that there is no finding of CIT(A) with respect to examination of creditors and their genuineness. We therefore feel that this aspect needs to be examined afresh. We therefore restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for him to pass speaking order, after considering the submissions of the Assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Addition on account of unsecured loan - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted on the basis of evidence in the form of copy of passport, permanent resident card, copy of account showing money receipt through banking channels and confirmation from the party, that the onus has been discharged by the Assessee. He has further noted that the Assessing Officer had made no adverse comment on the basic ingredients while examining the verification of loan in the remand report. Before us, the Revenue could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. 4. Ground No. 1 and 2 are interconnected and therefore considered together. These 2 grounds are is in respect to addition of ₹ 1,02,46,219/- to assets and depreciation thereon. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that Assessee had shown addition to new assets amounting to ₹ 1,77,95,962/- in its Balance Sheet. The Assessee was asked to furnish the copies of the purchase bills of the new assets acquired by it. Assessee submitted copies for assets amounting to ₹ 75,49,743/- for the various categories listed in para 4.2 of the order of A.O. Assessing Officer was of the view that since the Assessee has failed to submit the bills, the addition in new assets remains unverifiable. He accordingly made addition of ₹ 1,02,46,219/- and also disallowed the depreciation on the same of amounting to ₹ 33,09,717/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the Assessee deleted the addition by holding as under:- 2.3 I have considered the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of the Assessee has decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessee was asked to submit the details of the bills of assets acquired by it by the Assessing Officer but the Assessee did not submit the entire details and therefore the Assessing Officer disallowed the additions made to the assets to the extent of the bills were not submitted by the Assessee. It is also an undisputed fact that before CIT(A), Assessee had filed additional evidence and CIT(A) had also called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer objected to filing of additional evidence but had not examined the evidences on merit. CIT(A) therefore held that when the entire details were submitted to the AO and since the Assessing Officer has not verified the same on merits no additions was called for and therefore deleted the entire addition and also allowed the depreciation of the same. We find that on the evidences in the form of bills which were submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A), there is no specific finding of CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose and therefore cannot be held to be capital assets. He has further noted that it was in relation to expenditure on training with licence to the main software having single use. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 4 is with respect to disallowance of ₹ 27,60,730. 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that Assessee has incurred expenses on various accounts, the details of which are tabulated in para 6 page of 3 of his order the Aggregate amount being ₹ 1,65,64,384/-. The Assessee was asked to furnish the copy of accounts of the expenses. Since the Assessee submitted partial details, the Assessing Officer disallowed 1/6th of all the expenses and accordingly made disallowance of ₹ 27,60,730/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5.3 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions as advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the addition by holding as under:- 6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. As discussed in earlier paras, the A.O. made such adhoc addition on account of partial compliance by. the appellant during asst. proceedings. The basis of 25% of such creditor for which addtion was made is not tenable in the eyes of law. Now, when appellant has submitted complete detail, the A.O. has not put any comment on merit of such details. On the other hand, perusal, of such details substantiates claim of appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any specific finding against the ground, the A.O. is not justified in making such adhoc addition. The A.O. is directed to delete such addition. The appellant get relief of ₹ 22,11,811/-. 19. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 20. Before us, the learned D.R relied on the order of Assessing Officer and on the other hand the Ld. A.R. supported the order of CIT(A). 21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the A.O. We also find that there is no finding of CIT(A) with respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
