9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Appellant : Smt. Aarti Vissanji For The Respondent : Shri Randhri Gupta ORDER Per RAJESH KUMAR, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-17, Mumbai dated 11.9.2014 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The issues raised in ground No.1(b) is in respect of confirmation of ₹ 7,30,755/- for un-reconciled entries on account of non-reconciliation of AIR information and ground no 1(c) is qua non adjudication of ground raised in respect of ₹ 2,48,631/- appearing in AIR in respect of those parties with whom the assessee denied to have any business dealings. 3. Facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and revised form No. 26AS, the difference to the tune of ₹ 1,45,39,060/- was reconciled which related to one party namely Diamond Trading and Consultancy Ltd was duly accounted for in the books of assessee. However, the AO stated that the assessee could not reconcile ₹ 7,30,755/- and submitted that no relief could be granted in respect of the said amount. Finally, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee partly vide para 1.3.8 of the appellate order which is as under : 1.3.8 Adverting to the facts of the appellant case, it is seen that all the basis of additional evidences and revised 26AS, it was confirmed by the Ld.AO that the appellant has reconciled the transactions amounting to ₹ 1,45,39,060/- with res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation/form No.26AS were bad in law and deserved to be deleted . The ld. counsel submitted that if at all the AO had any doubts he could have issued summons under section 133(6) of the Act and should have carried out further investigation into the issue as he has all the information in his possession but instead of it he simply proceeded to add the income to the total income of the assessee which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT V/s BLR India Pvt Ltd in ITA No.5556/Mum/2013(AY-2008-09) dated 11.4.2016 in which the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. The ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition was rightly made. Per contra, the ld. AR submitted before us that reconciliation of AIR data is not possible with the books of accounts as the information in the AIR were not put into the computer by the assessee but by those parties who deducted the TDS from the contractual payments made to the assessee. Thus there was every possibility that some deducted tax at sources on payment basis whereas others on accrual basis and in some cases might have wrongly deducted the TDS. The AR further submitted that the total sales as shown in the books of accounts were ₹ 2,42,06,01,170/- whereas the total sales in AIR report were ₹ 48,42,51,354/- which is just 20% of the total sales of the assessee. Out of the said AIR entries the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO. It reconciled all the accounts wherever ledger entries were made available to it. Only in one case he could not reconcile the entries. From the RR of the AO it is evident that the facts narrated by the FAA (para 2.2) are correct and based on sound footings. FAA had upheld a portion of addition where assessee had failed to reconcile the figure. In our opinion, in these circumstances, his order does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. Therefore, confirming his order we decide Ground No.1 against the AO. We therefore, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal is dismissed and the AO is directed accordingly. 6. The facts of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
