9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in upholding the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- paid to National Trading Co. in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale trading business of tea and running his business under the name and style of Mahesh Trading Co. The generally purchase tea from Kolkata and Siliguri auction and sell them to local parties and also inter-state parties and business concern had its branch office cum sales office at Rampuraphul, Punjab. The ld AO observed from the profit and loss account, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a fact that National Trading Co. had duly reflected the amounts received from the assessee in its returns and prayed for setting aside of this issue to the file of the ld AO for verification of this fact from his side and if found to be correct, then based on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been held to be retrospective in operation by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd, reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del), which was later followed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tirupati Construction in G.A. No. 2146 of 2016 with ITAT No. 287 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016, the assessee may be given the relief from disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50) as bogus claim made by the assessee. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- "For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the entire amount of rs.72,832/- comprising petty expenses." 3.2. The ld AR argued that the assessee had factually submitted details before the ld AO to the tune of Rs. 3,25,104/- as against Rs. 2,96,250/- wrongly stated by the ld AO. The ld AR also filed the copy of the details filed before the ld AO before us . The balance sum of Rs. 43,978/- represents petty expenses incurred by the assessee throughout the year for which party wise details could not be gathered in view of innumerable number of parties and the number of transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
