9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owances made by Assessing Officers Rs. 1. Addition made on account of Unexplained Cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Rs.41,25,640/- 2. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Rs.4,89,436/- 3. Disallowance of salary paid to i) Asama Dhankwala ii) Shakishta H. Dhankwala iii)Safina G. Dhankwala Rs.99,840/- 4. Ad-hoc disallowance of various expenditures viz. subscription & contribution, travelling allowances, vehicles maintenance and repairs. Rs.15,000/- 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.03.2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the additions. The grounds raised by assessee in appeal are as under: "1. The learned C.I.T.[A] has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,25,640.00 made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the IT. Act, 1961. While doing so the learned CIT[A] has failed to appreciate that the impugned amounts were discounts received which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliers are confirmed. 4.1 The ld. AR pointed that the assessee has already offered the amount of discount under consideration to tax in the subsequent assessment years. The assessee declare discount in his return of income as and when they are allowed to the assessee by suppliers. Since, the assessee has offered the discounts to tax in subsequent years, the addition made in the assessment year under appeal has resulted in double taxation of the same amount. The ld. AR contended that in the assessment year under consideration and subsequent assessment years, the income of the assessee is taxable at maximum tax rate, therefore, there is no loss of the revenue. The assessee has no intention of postponement of tax or to avoid payment of taxes. 4.2 The ld. AR made alternate prayer without prejudice to his earlier submissions, by way of additional ground that if the addition of Rs. 41,25,640/- is to be confirmed then the discount offered for taxation in subsequent assessment years may be reduced from taxable income in the respective assessment years. 5. In respect of ground No. 2 of appeal, the ld. AR submitted that Authorities below have erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,89,436/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals). The ld. DR submitted that the impugned order is well-reasoned and balanced. The assessee has failed to substantiate his submissions before Authorities below with cogent evidence. 9. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of Authorities below. 9.1 In ground No. 1 of appeal the assessee has assailed addition of Rs. 41,25,640/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee contended that this amount represents discount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rejected the contentions of assessee by observing as under: "4.Before the undersigned, the explanation of the assessee remains the same. It was submitted that since the purchases made by the assessee from various parties have been proved, the credit entries pertaining to corresponding purchases should be accepted. Having considered assessee's explanation, I find that the appellant's contention that discount is accounted for as and when received is not backed by evidence. It cannot be accepted that the appellant does not maintain accounts of customers and in case it maintains, the same cannot be reconciled custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant extract of the order of Tribunal is reproduced herein below: "9. In the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra) the assessee had paid interest to 34 parties aggregating Rs. 7,87,291/ - but did not deduct tax at source u/s.194A. It was claimed by the assessee that all the payees to whom the interest was paid have furnished declarations in Form No. 15G/15H to the assessee. The assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that the said forms were filed belatedly by mistakes. The Tribunal also observed that even if the assessee have belatedly filed the declarations with the office of CCIT /CIT beyond the time limit specified in Sec.197A(2) that amount to omission or default for which the penalties prescribed and no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) can be made. 10. In the case of Karwat Steel Traders Vs. ITO (supra) the assessee has paid the interest but did not deduct the tax at source in respect of 17 parties. It was claimed that Form No. 15G/15H were raised. The Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Sec.40 (a)(ia) of the Act made the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 5,30,429 /-.The Tribunal followed a decision in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra) and held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in a mechanical manner. Therefore, in our view the disallowance of Rs. 99,840/- u/s.40A(2)(b) is not warranted and thus, the same is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 3 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed.
12. In ground No. 4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 15,000/-. The assessee has claimed total expenditure of Rs. 1,05,552/- on account of vehicle maintenance, repairs etc. The Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 15,000/- as the expenses were supported by self made vouchers and on the premise that there is an element of personal expenditure. The disallowance of lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000/- in the facts of the case appears to be reasonable and justified. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the findings of Assessing Officer/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in appeal by assessee is dismissed.
13. The ground No. 5 raised in appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication.
14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2018. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
