9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition made by the AO in this regard. The said ground of appeal is thus partly allowed. Addition for bad and doubtful debts, written back and reduced from the other expenses - Held that:- The action of non acceptance of the genuine claim of the assessee by the lower authorities is unjustified and liable to be deleted. We consider it fair and proper in the interest of justice to set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of hearing and upon taking into consideration of the entire evidence already available on record as well as other documentary evidence which the assessee may choose to file in support of the claim on the issue. - ITA No.261/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM And Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM For The Appellant : Shri Siddhartha Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM The instant appeal has been filed before us by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee has not produced any bill in respect of such payments rather the assessee produced self made vouchers towards payment made to different persons. 4.1. The ld. CIT(A) on appeal upheld the order passed by the Ld.AO on the ground that such expenses were not supported by cogent material and neither any attempt has been made by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the expenses. 5. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal before us, the ld. AR submitted that it has not been disputed by the ld. AO that the expenses were actually incurred by the assessee and the same is recorded in the regular books of accounts. Further that the AO has not brought on record any cogent material so as to justify that, part of the major expenses should be disallowed on estimate basis and thus neither the said expenditure was considered to be bogus by the AO. The ld. AR further added that this is just a mechanical addition for the sake of disallowance. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO. 6. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the respective parties. We find that when the AO allowed 70% of the total expenses made on account of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these .These expenses included a sum of ₹ 141100/ on account of Delite Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, ₹ 40300/- on account of Sagursan Pvt Ltd , ₹ 16000/ on account of Sagursan Exports Pvt Ltd and ₹ 16000/- on account Anna Grehoy Nirman P.Ltd as expenses towards amalgamation with Delites Properties Pvt Ltd. These companies were amalgamated by the court order with effect from 1.4.2004 and assessee claimed these expenses in its books. Assessee produce self made vouchers with respect to payment to lawyers and recovery agents of ₹ 126100/ on account of Delite Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd and ₹ 23800/ However assessee could not produce any bill with respect to these payments. Mr. Jalan was requested to explain why these expenses should not be disallowed Mr. Jalan could not say anything. In view of the above 30% of the total expenses( 141100+40300+16000+16000) =Rs 64020/ is disallowed and added back to the total income. 8.1. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon the order passed by the AO dismissing the ground of appeal preferred by the assessee on the ground that the AR failed to prove the genuineness of this transaction in the appellate proceedings. The ld. AR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of account leading to wrong disclosure of loss appears to have also skipped notice and attention of the auditor. 11.1. During the assessment proceedings the assessee by its letter dated 03.11.2008 and 24.11.2008 drew attention to the ld. AO and requested to exclude the same from the income of the assessee as this is not lawfully to be taxed. The AO, however, declined to entertain the said claim of the assessee on the ground that since no revised return was filed the claim for exclusion of the same could not be entertained. The ld. AR further submitted that such mistake was done due to ignorance of the accountant and the assessee cannot be made to suffer the loss and damage for such ignorance of the accountant for lack of attention on the part of qualified auditor. On the contrary the ld. DR argued in support of the order passed by the AO and the CIT(A). 12. We have heard the representatives of both the parties. We have perused the relevant papers available on records. It appears from the fact that non acceptance of the assessee s prayer for lawful exclusion of the amount have resulted to a wrong determination of income for the relevant year. Moreover, taxation of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
