9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,222/- on account of unapproved payment to the subcontractors/ labour charges. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance of Motor car expenses to 5% as against 20%.. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,71,3000/- under section 68 of the Act . 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in Civil and Labour contracts from Government and Local Bodies and is proprietor of M/s Pruthvi Construction. The assessee filed his return of income for relevant assessment year on 24 September 2010 declaring total income of Rs. 32,73,470/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 13th March 2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order besides the other addition/disallowance, dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival contention of the parties and perused the order of authorities below. The AO made the disallowance holding that notices under section 133(6) were issued to the subcontractor which have been returned by the postal authorities as undelivered, thus the parties are not genuine. The AO asked to the assessee to produce the document related with identity of the subcontractor, income tax returns, computation of income, bank statement. The assessee filed his reply dated 6th March 2013 and contended that that all the parties to whom the notices were issued have filed their reply dated 15th Jan 2013. It was further contended that the subcontractor had provided the labour force only and not the building materials. The TDS was deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine. The AO has not proved by placing any other evidence that such parties are actually bogus and deleted the disallowances. We have seen that various subcontractor have filed their reply before the AO along with their copy of ledger account, bank statement, ITR return and nature of payment. The AO merely suspected that the line of reply by all parties is similar. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 raised in the present appeal relates to restricting the disallowance of Motorcar Expenses to 5% against 20% made by AO. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of AO and prayed to restore the order of AO by setting-aside the order of ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of insurances. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 6. Ground No.3 raised in the present appeal relates to deletion the addition of Rs. 5,71,300/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. Ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the assessee purchased a Flat in Kandivali on 01.07.2009 and made the payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash, the assessee was asked to prove the source of payment and availability of fund. The assessee furnished the cashbook wherein assessee has shown to have received cash loan from 30 persons. The assessee could not prove those parties to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transaction. On the other hand, Ld. AR for assessee argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
