9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery hire charges from L&T Ltd in the sum of ₹ 7,88,104/- and included the same in the gross contract receipts and hence there is no scope of making any separate addition towards the same as rental income. This has been rightly considered by the ld CITA and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in his order.- Decided against revenue Addition of the Principal amount from which the interest was earned - Held that:- We find that the ld AO had merely back worked the interest amount and assumed an interest rate of 8% p.a. and arrived at the principal portion at ₹ 4,00,000/- . This is absolutely without any basis. We find that the entire addition has been made only based on surmise and conjecture which has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT-A.- Decided against revenue Disallowance of wages - AO treated the expenditure of January 2011 on wages account for TISCO site at Jamshedpur as expenditure not recorded in the books of account - Held that:- CITA observed that this submission of the assessee was not supported by any evidences and hence upheld the disallowance of the ld AO. We find that the ld CIT-A had rightly upheld the disallowance in the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntile system of accounting. The assessee had filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2011-12 on 27.2.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 1,94,45,094/- and agricultural income of ₹ 78,750/-. The ld AO observed that the contractual receipt as per Form 26AS was ₹ 45,65,33,422/- whereas the assessee disclosed ₹ 43,25,40,321/- in his profit and loss account. The difference of ₹ 2,39,93,101/- was added to the total income of the assessee in the assessment. Before the ld CITA, the assessee mentioned that the assessment order failed to even mention as to how the 26AS figure comes to ₹ 45,65,33,422/-. The entire details were filed before the ld AO. Even the confirmation from L T Ltd was filed before the ld AO explaining the entire gamut of contract work carried out together with the financials and the ledger copies as appearing in their books. None of these papers were even discussed by the ld AO in his assessment order and the ld AO made an addition in an arbitrary manner without recording any finding in his order. The ld CITA observed that the contractual receipt as per 26AS as taken by the ld AO consists of the following:- L T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the assessee had reported more contract receipts than that was disclosed in updated Form 26AS and accordingly held that there is no case for sustenance of the addition made by the ld AO on account of concealment of contract receipts. Moreover, we find that the Form 26AS is within the knowledge of the income tax department and is generated from the website of the income tax department. As and when necessary corrections were carried out by the payer (i.e L T etc) to the account of the assessee payee, then the Form 26AS would undergo frequent changes. It is not in dispute that L T had carried out rectifications in the account of the assessee and had accordingly updated its TDS returns which consequently had resulted in lesser contract receipts in the updated Form 26AS. The reliance placed on the updated Form 26AS by the assessee and filed before the ld CITA cannot be considered as an additional evidence filed before ld CITA as it is the document within the domain of the income tax department. Moreover, the ld CITA had only directed the ld AO to verify the said transactions with updated Form 26AS, which in our considered opinion, is fair and reasonable. The revenue can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee derived interest income of ₹ 31,475/- and disclosed the same in the return of income. The ld AO backworked the interest by imputing rate of interest at 8% p.a. and arrived at the principal amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- on an approximate basis and made an addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- by treating the principal portion as to have been given out of undisclosed sources of the assessee. The ld CITA deleted the addition as it was merely made based on projection by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- I.T.A. No. 1132/Kol/2015 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of the Principal amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- from which the interest of ₹ 31,475/- was earned [which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)]. 5.2. We have heard the ld DR. We find that the ld AO had merely back worked the interest amount and assumed an interest rate of 8% p.a. and arrived at the principal portion at ₹ 4,00,000/- . This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
