9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order is unreasoned and has blindly accepted the CIT (A)’s logic that propriety demands that the assessee’s surrender–restricted to ₹ 50 lakhs should be accepted. The expenses claimed were ₹ 1 crore. Once the assessee admitted that ₹ 50 lakhs was claimed excessively, the onus of showing that the balance ₹ 50 lakhs was a justified expenditure lay upon it. The assessee did not discharge that onus; the AO was therefore justified in bringing in to tax that expenditure. The reasoning adopted by the CIT (A) and the ITAT are therefore, unsustainable.Question of law framed has to be answered in favour of the revenue - ITA 436/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the companies of Sh. S.K. Gupta. 3. The directors of the assessee were confronted with this statement and asked to produce any evidence in support of the claim for such expenses. They directors admitted that there was no agreement and that they did not know whether any software was installed. The assessee could not also produce any register to show that any employee of S.K. Gupta's company ever entered the premises of the assessee to install, update repair any software or provide any service. Thus, the revenue was of the opinion that the assessee had not taken any consultancy services from T G Quality Management Consultants Limited, for its contract with M/s LMZ Energy (I) Limited. Further T G Quality Management Consultants Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submissions that its directors retracted from the statement on 3.3.2010 and that S.K. Gupta had given another statement during appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) reasoned as follows: 11. In this case since the retraction has occurred much after the assessment has taken place, sub clause 46A (1) (c) seems to be applicable here, i.e. the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; here clearly the retractions have come much after the assessment has taken place and there is no way the appellant could have produced these statements or affidavit before the A.O. These being important pieces of evidence for the grounds of appeal, were offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for both the years and both the appeals of the department are dismissed. 6. The revenue argued that the ITAT s logic is utterly indefensible and that the vague notions of the CIT (A), i.e., that the addition had to be restricted to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs being just and appropriate was unsustainable under the circumstances. It was argued that once the assessee was unable to justify the expenditure claimed, whether Shri S.K. Gupta s statement was on record, or was made in connection with other proceedings, were entirely irrelevant. The deletion of ₹ 50 lakhs on the grounds of its being just or appropriate was under these circumstances untenable. 7. Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
