9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned of letter undelivered does not leaves to the conclusion that payments made to these parties are not genuine. 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). - Decided against revenue Disallowance of Motor car expenses to 5% against 20% made by AO - Held that:- Two of the Car owned by assessee are provided to his employee to visit the site on regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord that unsecured loan are bogus or not genuine has treated the loan taken from the parties as unexplained, which is not justified. We have seen that ld. CIT(A) have examined the identity of the parties which was not disputed by AO, creditworthiness of the persons was examined from their statement recorded by AO and genuinenity of transaction against which the AO has not brought any material on record. Thus, in the peculiarity of the case, we concur with the finding of ld. CIT(A), thus, this ground of appeal is also dismissed.- Decided against revenue - ITA No.280/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Sh. D.V. Singh -DR For The Assessee : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led appeal before the CIT(A) and succeeded therein. Thus, being aggrieved of the order of ld CIT(A) the revenue has filed present appeal before us. 3. We have heard ld Departmental Representative (DR) for revenue and the ld Authorized Representative (DR) for assessee and perused the material available on record. First Ground of appeal for our consideration relates with deletion of payments to subcontractor /labour charges. The ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition without any basis. It was further argued that the parties to whom the payments were made were not genuine; none of the parties to whom the payments were allegedly made appeared during the assessment. The ld DR prayed that order of AO be restored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f work. The contention of assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO concluded that parties furnished their reply is factually incorrect. The postal authorities have returned the letters address to those parties as undelivered on account of incomplete address and the assessee must have himself prepared the replies on behalf of parties upon him the notices were not served. The replies were furnished in the receipt counter only . The language used in all reply is and print is apparently the same. The assessee failed to produce all the persons, thus the identity of the parties was not established and hence, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the sub-contractor. The ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground concluded that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 2,30,311/-. The AO issued the show-cause notice to the assessee that no separate Car is maintained for personal purpose and as to why the disallowance @ 20% of Motorcar Expenses should not be disallowed. The assessee filed his reply and contended that he maintained three Motorcar which are reflecting in the Balance-sheet and all Cars are used for running the business as contractual obligation. Two of the Car owned by assessee are provided to his employee to visit the site on regular basis. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by AO, the AO concluded that no Logbook have been maintained to prove that Car was not used for personal purpose and disallowed 20% of the expenses. Ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the contention of the parties and perused the record. Out of out of 30 persons, four persons attended the proceeding before AO, but the AO discarded their capacity to pay cash loan to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground examined the statement of four persons recorded by AO. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that it is not the case of AO that the evidence placed on record shows the same transaction or the parties are not genuine. The essential ingredients to establish a loan transaction as genuine has been furnished by the assessee by filing evidence which consist of confirmation of creditors, identity of creditors, their PAN Number and even by producing them before the AO, thus the assessee has discharged his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
