9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining amount as revenue receipt for the reason that the assessee had claimed TDS of ₹ 1,16,100/- in computation of income. As per the AO the authorized representative of the assessee failed to explain as to why the company Vodafone deducted the tax at source on the entire payment if the part of it was towards security. On the other hand the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of AO holding that the assessee has failed to reconcile the balance with the liability shown in the balance sheet to substantiate its plea. So, in our considered view before making addition of the amount in question, AO should have verified the facts to establish that the entire amount was revenue receipt. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions made on behalf of the assessee and the details submitted the AO made inter alia addition of ₹ 4,41,000/-on the basis of a AIR information which revealed that the assessee received an amount of ₹ 11,61,000/-from Vodafone Essar Ltd. on which tax at source (TDS) was directed however, the assessee offered only ₹ 7.20.000/-. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment order and contended that the AO has wrongly added the amount of refundable deposit taken as security for future damage as could possibly be caused by the tenant (Vodafone) having no revenue implication. Without prejudice to above, merely because Vodafone inadvertently deducted tax at source revenue recognition cannot be presumed automatically in the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interested in pursuing its appeal. Hence, we decided to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material on record after hearing the departmental representative (DR). Accordingly, we allowed the Ld. DR to advance arguments on behalf of the revenue. 6. Before us, the Ld. departmental representative (DR) relying on the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that since the assessee had claimed TDS of ₹ 1,16,100/-the assessee was asked as to why the difference of ₹ 4,41,000/- should not be added to the total income and since the assessee could not explain the same, the learned CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the entire material on record. The only grievance of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an amount of ₹ 3,00,104 under three different heads in the balance sheet as mentioned in para 8.2. Again after that the appellant discussed the amount of ₹ 4,41,000/ and the TDS amount of 10% on such amount and net figure is arrived at ₹ 3,96,000/-. Whereas an amount of ₹ 1, 16,000/ is directed as TDS on the total amount of ₹ 11,61,000/ . At that point the appellant says that an amount of ₹ 96,796/ is not in a position to explain. But later it is brought down to ₹ 15, 896/ . With all these things it is clear that the appellant tries to reconcile the balance with the liability shown in the B/S which he has miserably failed to do so. On verification of the balance sheet furnished for the year en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income. As per the AO the authorized representative of the assessee failed to explain as to why the company Vodafone deducted the tax at source on the entire payment if the part of it was towards security. On the other hand the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of AO holding that the assessee has failed to reconcile the balance with the liability shown in the balance sheet to substantiate its plea. So, in our considered view before making addition of the amount in question, AO should have verified the facts to establish that the entire amount was revenue receipt. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that further verification of the facts by the AO in the light of the contention of the assessee is necessary. Hence, we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
