9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding an addition of ₹ 78,024/- for disallowance out of telephone / car expenses for personal use in spite of the fact that the assessee has already paid FBT on this amount. 3. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee being general is dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noted that the assessee had annexed TDS certificate in Form No. 16-A for ₹ 29,640/- issued by the Principal, MLN College, Allahabad. As per the said certificate the TDS was deducted for Financial Year 2005-06 against contract payments of ₹ 12,88,956/-. The assessee had claimed the credit of the said TDS deducted. The Assessing officer vide letter hearing No.3222 dated 15.10.2008 requested The Principal, MLN College Allahabad to file the copy of the account of the assessee as appearing in its books of account. In reply, vide letter No. 9837 dated 12.11.2008, the party enclosed the copy of Proforma Invoices against which the assessee had supplied scientific instruments to the institute. The invoice Nos. 135 to 138 were dated 23/25.2.2006. The break up of the particulars of the respective inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained for Financial Year 2006-07 was held to be irrelevant, and rejected. The Assessing officer thus held that as the assessee had claimed TDS during the year under assessment, the non recording of sales during the year cannot be accepted. 5. The assessee had filed an application u/s 144 A of the Income Tax Act before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Yamunanagar against which the JCIT confirmed the view of the Assessing officer that the sales amounting to ₹ 12,88,000/- pertained to Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing officer accordingly included the same as income of the year under consideration. Before the CIT(A), the claim of the assessee was that though the invoice were issued as the College had to spend the sanctioned funds by 31.3.2006, but the goods were supplied subsequently on 25.4.2006. The assessee thus had shown the sales in the Financial Year 2006-07, where as the Assessing officer held that the sales pertains to Financial Year 2005-06. The CIT(A) observed that the invoices were issued in February 2006 for ₹ 12,88,956/- on the basis of which the said expenditure has been booked by the MLN College and full payments made to the assessee. As per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had on the basis of Form No. 16-A - issued by The Principal, MLN Medical College, Allahabnad claimed TDS of ₹ 29,640/-. Enquiries were made from MLN College, Allahabad and in reply vide letter dated 9837 dated 11.12.2008, the copies of Performa invoice were forwarded to the Assessing officer. The said letter is placed at page 2 of the paper book alongwith the copies of Performa Invoice / Bills issued by the assessee at pages 3 to 6 of the paper book. The mode of delivery is mentioned through Safe Express Cargo on the said bills. Further, there is a noting on the said Performa Invoices, that the bill is passed for payment by the Principal, MLN College, Allahabhad in the letter dated 11.12.2008. The Principal, MLN College informs that the assessee had supplied all the items / instruments on 26.3.2006, which were entered in the enclosed bills. Further, vide letter dated 5.5.2006, the assessee has acknowledged receipt of drafts dated 13.4.2006 in May, 2006. The copy of the said letter along with copies of drafts for ₹ 7,88,600/-, ₹ 1,91,438/- ₹ 38,291/- and ₹ 2,36,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses that the delivery of the goods was received with in the Financial Year 200506. The assessee on the other hand claims to have delivered the goods in Financial Year 2006-07 and placed reliance on the series of evidence including the receipt of transporter through whom the goods have been transported and the evidence with regard to the entry of goods through State borders. The payment against the said transactions is admittedly made by drafts dated 13.4.2006, copies of which are available on record. On consideration of the above said documents / evidence we find that the authorities below have failed to address the issue of the terms of the contract, the conditions attached to the contract, the date of completion of the contract, date of delivery of goods and the payments in connection thereof. The question/s needs to be addressed in present case are when the contract can be said to have been completed making the assessee liable to reflect the sales of the aforesaid goods. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing officer to readjudicate the issue of completion of the contract after considering the evidence available in entirety ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
