9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dividend - Held that:- dividend is exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act - assessee is entitled for a claim of deduction under Act if it is eligible for the same, even if the said amounts have not been claimed in the return of Income filed by the assessee - thus AO is therefore directed to verify the claim of this deduction - decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.636/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2018 - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member And Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member For The Appellant : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR For The Respondent : Shri G.R. Saha, Advocate ORDER PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.62,64,269 Rs,18,59,533 Rs.44,04,736 Milan Marine Services Rs.1,21,223 Nil Rs.1,21,223 Total Rs.45,25,959 In view of the above, it is concluded that the assessee company claimed bogus expenditure as a result of which excess liability towards sundry creditors were shown to the tune of ₹ 45,25,959/-. Therefore, the said amount of ₹ 45,25,959/- is now being added back to the income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings u/s. 2771(1)(c) is being initiated separately, on this ground for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 08. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the respective figures. The disallowance needs to be deleted. 09 DECISION : 1. I have examined the matte relating to the action of the AO in making the disallowance of ₹ 45,25,959/-, wherein, on the basis of difference of figures of reconciliation, the AO has concluded that the assessee company claimed bogus expenditure as a result of which excess liability towards Sundry Creditor were shown to the tune of the same amount. 2. The said disallowance has been made on the basis of seeking information from the creditors, and matching with the amounts disclosed by the appellant as Sundry Creditors . It is also to be observed that it appears that the information gathered by the AO was not confronted to/with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness houses besides rendering other services to the Appellant. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, there was enough information before the AO to ascertain the position of the parties in some detail, and attempt reconciliation, before making the impugned addition. 5. The other contentions of the appellant, namely that the accounts of the Appellant are subjected to Statutory Audit under the Companies Act 1956, Statutory Tax Audit u/s. 44B of Income Tax Act and Mandatory Audit of the CAG, and that in none of these three audits any discrepancy in the Sundry Creditor s account has been found or mentioned and that the appellant is wholly owned by the State Government, do not in my considered opinion quality for any different or lenient v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that statement has been discussed in assessment order nor the same forms part of record before us which could highlight any such shortfall. Coupled with this, the Assessing Officer had also not furnished the said third party s correspondence; if any, to the assessee before making the impugned addition. We make it clear that the CIT(A) clinching findings that the very parties are assessee s regular suppliers have gone unrebutted from the Revenue s side. We thus see no reason to accept Revenue s instant former substantive ground. The same stands declined. 4. The Revenue s latter substantive ground seeks to revive prior period expenditure / disallowance / addition of ₹57,39,778/- on account of prior period expenditure. We do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , due to ignorance of the person who prepared the details for filing the Return of Income this amount was not excluded from the computation of income. as dividend is exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act it needs to be deleted. In similar circumstances, in the immediately earlier year similar deduction was kindly allowed in appeal by the Learned. CIT(Appeals). 3. Further, as per the Learned AR, as the omission was inadvertent, it needs to be corrected and deduction allowed. 4. In this matter, it is relevant that in the case of Sam Global Securities Ltd 360 ITR 628, it has been held that an assessee is entitled for a claim of deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it is eligible for the same, even if the said amounts have not been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
