9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained sundry creditors - Held that:- in the present case, the assessee has not established this also that the creditors are for goods or expenses and mere crediting the amounts in the account with the nomenclature “Creditors for material and labour etc.” as per copy available on pages 47 to 64 of the paper book does not establish the contention that there are creditors for goods and/or expenses particularly in the absence of name and address of the said creditors. Hence, we reverse the order of CIT (A) on this issue and restore that of the A.O - Decided against assessee Disallowance of salary of partners - Held that:- Disallowance of salary to partners has been deleted by CIT(A) on the basis that during the year in question, fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es - Held that:- This disallowance was partly deleted by CIT(A) on the basis that the disallowance of 2.5% was made by the Assessing Officer on ad hoc basis and in the opinion of CIT(A), the disallowance of 1% is reasonable. In this manner, he reduced the disallowance to ₹ 15,55,749/- as against disallowance of ₹ 38,89,360/- made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the present case, we feel that there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) - Decided against revenue Addition of damage and storage expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) held that right from loading, unloading till the material is used at its final stage, there is shortage at ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue was decided by CIT(A) in favour of the assessee on the basis that this amount of ₹ 16,28,868/- added by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 is regarding opening balance of three outgoing partners and therefore, the same is not justified. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue because opening balance cannot be added in the present year u/s 68 and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground No. 1 is rejected. 5. Ground No. 2 is as under: 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,17,03,387/- made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unexplained sundry creditors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained unpaid liability in the hands of the assessee during the present year under consideration. As per the details available in paper book, we find that the ledger account of the creditors for material and labour etc. is available on pages 47 to 64 of the paper book. On page No. 47 of the paper book is opening balance as on 01/04/2009 of ₹ 2,17,03,381/- and there are debits and credits but even in the ledger account, no name is available as to on whose account the liability is increasing and the payments are made in cash on various dates without giving the names as to whom the payment is made. The credits are with the narration, purchase of contract materials, labour and wages etc. and the debit is by mentioning narration such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alary of partners amounting ₹ 32,71,702/-. 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer whereas Learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the disallowance of salary to partners has been deleted by CIT(A) on the basis that during the year in question, fresh partnership deed was prepared in which salary to partners was settled to be paid on the basis of profit sharing ratio and this was done to give boost to the partners to work more diligently and honestly for the upliftment of the firm. He has further noted that the partners were also reduced from 8 to 5. Regarding this allegation that the partnership deed was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). In the paper book filed before us also, no such evidence has been brought on record to establish that the date-wise cash payment noted by the Assessing Officer is not payment to one party but to different parties. Hence, on this issue also, we feel that the order of CIT(A) is not sustainable and therefore, we reverse the same and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground No. 4 is allowed. 14. Ground No. 5 is as under: 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 23,33,616/- out of various expenses claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account. 15. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
