9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year under consideration. Failure on part of the assessee resulted in addition made by the AO and partly sustained by the FAA. No legal infirmity in the order of the FAA, as the assessee has not followed the provisions of the Act as well as the accounting standards. - Decided against the assessee. TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - no tax was deducted from clearing and forwarding charges - Held that:- FAA has not considered the argument of double disallowance, as the assessee had not argued the same before him. We are of the opinion that double taxation/double deductions are not to be allowed/made while determining the income of an assessee for a particular year. We would direct the AO to make verification in that regard and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s about sustaining an addition of ₹ 85. 50 lakhs to the closing stock by way of inputting proportionate expenses towards custom duty and clearing charges. During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had shown closing stock of ₹ 3. 08 crores, that he had valued it at cost without loading the direct expenses, that in profit and loss account he had claimed custom duty (Rs. 2. 83 crores) clearing charges(Rs. 28. 73 lakhs), labour charges(Rs. 3. 35 lakhs), loading charges(Rs. 2. 01 lakhs), transportation charges (Rs. 2. 91 lakhs)and wages(11. 95 lakhs)aggregating to ₹ 3. 23 crores. He observed that expenses incurred were about 29. 53% of total purchase of ₹ 11. 25 crores made during the year under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, he made a disallowance of ₹ 28, 73, 467/-. Part B of the ground three is about failure of the FAA to appreciate that proportionate expenses on clearing charges had already been disallowed. It is stated in the ground that rejection resulted in double disallowance. 5. Last ground of appeal is about sustaining the addition of ₹ 38. 26 lakhs under section 68 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had received loans of ₹ 13. 26 lakhs and ₹ 25 lakhs from Abushad Siddiqui(AS) and Khalid Ahmed Mohammad(KAM). He directed the assessee to submit the loan confirmation and to prove the creditworthiness of the persons and also to prove the genuineness of the transaction. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that regard, before the AO during the assessment proceedings in spite of several opportunities, that even during the appellate proceedings he had submitted explanation with regard to basis labour and loading charges aggregating to ₹ 17. 32 lakhs out of the total expenditure of 3. 32 crores, that the inability of the assessee proved that he had not to offer four major part of the expenditure, that principally there was no dispute that the assessee was required to value its closing stock by adding the proportionate direct expenditure as per the provisions of the Act, that the explanation submitted by him vide letter dated 03/03/2015 was vague in nature and was without any supporting details, that the custom duty and clearing charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 194 C, the shipping agent should have been acting on behalf of the non-resident ship2875/ owners/charterers, that the assessee had submitted a common letter, dated, 19/01/2015 from MAERSK LINE issued to its customers, that from the letter it was not clear as to whether the assessee had made payment of all the clearing and forwarding charges, that it had not produced evidences about payments made to 3 other parties, that it was not proved that the other entities were assessed to tax as per the provisions of section 172 of the Act. He observed that the assessee had grossly failed to submit the complete party wise details of the expenditure incurred along with the relevant documentary evidences to prove how his case was covered by the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the clearing charges to the P L account, it was his duty to include the same while valuing the closing stock for the year under consideration. Failure on part of the assessee resulted in addition made by the AO and partly sustained by the FAA. In our opinion there is no legal infirmity in the order of the FAA, as the assessee has not followed the provisions of the Act as well as the accounting standards. Therefore. confirming the order of the FAA, we decide first ground of appeal against the assessee. 8.1. With regard to disallowance made for not deducting tax at source we would like to mention that the FAA has not considered the argument of double disallowance, as the assessee had not argued the same before him. We are of the opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
