9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubtedly it may also be on account of turnover not shown by the assessee. Further merely there is a difference between the gross turnover as per books of accounts and gross receipts as per Form No. 26AS the addition cannot be made. In fact such the difference would be the first trigger point for making further enquiries. In the present case the assessee has not made any attempt to reconcile the difference. Furthermore no reconciliation shown to us by the assessee also. Further the arguments of the assessee cannot be ignored that there are certain unmatched entries in form no 26AS. In view of this we set aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer with a specific direction to the assessee to produce the confirmed ledger accounts of the assessee from the books of accounts of its principal to show that there is no difference in the payment shown by the principal to the assessee with gross receipts shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee must also produce the detailed reconciliation between gross receipts as per books of accounts and gross receipt as per Form No. 26AS. Addition on account of Work Contractor Tax - Held that:- Argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer asked the various details but same were not produced before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he made an addition of ₹ 5136754/- on account of difference in gross receipts as per books of accounts and form No. 26AS. He further made an addition of ₹ 201462/- on account of works contract taxes not deposited. He further disallowed 1/5th of the total expenditure on conveyance, Labor welfare to the rent, salary and wages. He further disallowed 1/5th of total purchases shown by the assessee. 9. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer file an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). Assessee challenged that notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was not served on the assessee it was further contested that notice was not served on the assesse. The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the contention of the assessee. He held that as assessee has appeared in response to notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act it cannot be said that notice was not served on the assessee. He further upheld addition of ₹ 5136751/- on account of understatement of gross receipts and disallowance of ₹ 201462/- on account of works contract tax as assessee did not produce any proof of the same. With respect to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been received back undelivered were not found on the assessment record of the assessee. It is also the claim of the Assessing Officer that assessee had not mentioned about any change in its address. The Ld. CIT (A) has noted in para No. 3.3 that as per assessment record the first notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2010 and was delivered through speed post at two addresses. On verification of the assessment record by him he held that one of the two notices came back unserved. He further noted that the order sheet and record on 07.10.2010 in response to notice u/s 143 (2) issued on 28.09.2010 Sh. Naresh remained present. Therefore, according to him assessee complied with the first notice on 07.10.2010 therefore it cannot be said that notice were not served to the assessee in time. In view of the above facts we do not find any merit of the ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee and accordingly we uphold the order of the ld CIT (A) on that ground. 15. With respect to ground No. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee wherein addition on account of ₹ 5136751/- on account of gross receipts and ₹ 201462/- on account of works contract taxes are chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation between gross receipts as per books of accounts and gross receipt as per Form No. 26AS. On submission of such information the Ld. Assessing Officer may inquire the correctness of the facts from the principal by issuing notice u/s 133 (6), if he so desires, and if he finds that the difference is arising because of the unmatched transaction really not pertaining to the assessee but is on account of wrong posting by the deductor then the addition may be deleted. Accordingly, ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above direction. 18. Ground No. 5 of the appeal is with respect to addition on account of Work Contractor Tax of ₹ 201462/-. The above disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of the fact that assessee has failed to show proof of payment of the Work Contractor Tax. The Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed it. 19. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has declared turnover of ₹ 14444516/- and 4% Work Contractor Tax there on is ₹ 577780/-. The VAT paid according of the turnover is ₹ 376318/- and therefore, the sum of ₹ 201462/- is payable. It was stated that according to the VAT law as assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
