9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was not there before the AO and CIT(A) and it is seen from the order of AO and CIT(A) that for non-submission of any evidence to that effect that disallowance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the same, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of AO for his verification on an examination of the supporting document filed during the course of second appellate proceedings before us. Disallowances made on account of transportation & labour charges and loading & unloading charges of godown and wreck - addition of said amount only on the impression that the assessee has shown the payments aggregating single figure incurred towards the loading and unloading charges and it is very difficult to give details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment proceedings, the AO found from Annexure-C of Tax Audit Report from the assessee that the assessee paid rent of ₹ 1,80,000/- to one Shri Ramesh Kr. Agarwal. According to AO, the said Shri Ramesh Kr. Agarwal is a relative of the Director of the assessee-company and sought explanation from the assessee how the said payment is related to its business. The assessee through its Authorized Representative submitted that the said amount was paid towards rent for room at 5, Gokhale Road, Kolkata which was taken by the assessee for official purpose temporarily. The AO directed the assessee to produce Trade Licence or similar authentic documents to prove the genuineness of the claim and for non-submission of the relevant evidence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved by the Chairman. The ld. AR argued that the assessee started its business in the previous year relevant to year under consideration initially at the time as there was no registered office ready by that time. Accordingly, in order to conduct its operations, the assessee availed the aforesaid premises from Shri Ramesh Kr. Agarwal on rent basis. Thereafter, the assessee moved to its registered office premises at 12, Government Place (East), Kolkata. Therefore, the rent as claimed by the assessee is incurred towards rent and is business expenditure and claimed as deduction. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 8. Heard both and perused the materials available on record, we find that at the time of initial operations, the registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66/- under the sub-head transportation and labour charges of godown . On perusal of the party-wise details, the AO found that the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 1,11,659/- to other transportation and labour charges of godown below ₹ 50,000/-. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee did not furnish actual details and an amount ₹ 20,000/- was disallowed. Again the AO on perusal of the list under the basic head of freight and transportation charges , the assessee claimed an amount of ₹ 91,69,650/- under the sub-head loading and unloading charges of godown and wreck . The AO on perusal of the details of party-wise chart found that the assessee disclosed expenses of ₹ 17,71,446/- under the sub-head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the payments aggregating to ₹ 73,98,204/- constituting more than 80% of total expenditure, the details of parties with amount of tax deducted was furnished to the AO and was accepted without being any defect. The number of parties whose payments were below ₹ 50,000/- were numerous and no TDS was deducted from payments made to them and the amounts were clubbed and shown as an aggregate amounts of ₹ 17,71,446/-. The ld. AR further submits that small payments were consolidated to simplify the information to submit and AO did not find any defect in the 80% of payments. In respect of the balance 20%, no opportunity was given to the appellant to furnish further details and no details were asked for during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no opportunity for the assessee to produce the numerous details, payments attracting below ₹ 50,000/-. We find that the total income of the assessee is ₹ 1,21,84,444/- and there was no adverse remark in respect of 80% of total payments or books of accounts, taking into consideration the same disallowance on the basis of estimatation is not permissible. Thus, the additions made on account of loading and unloading charges are liable to be deleted. Thus, the Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed and accordingly, the additions made in the heads above are deleted. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
