9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sundry labour charges - Held that:- CIT(A) has discussed in detail and restricted the disallowance on both the disallowance at 10%. We find that even CIT(A) admits that for supporting bills and vouchers the disallowance is restricted at 10%. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, we restrict the disallowance at 5% on both the expenses and direct the AO accordingly. - ITA No. 1452/Mum/2016 And ITA No. 1434/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM For The Appellant : Shri Somnath M. Wagale, DR For The Respondent : Shri G. Ginde, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These cross appeal are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is engaged in logistics and warehousing business. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the accounts of the assessee that it has claimed expenses on account of purchases at ₹ 6, 89, 02, 425/-. Hence, he requires the assessee to produce supplier Depuy Medical Pvt. Ltd. from whom the assessee has affected the purchases during the year under consideration. According to AO, the assessee is unable to produce any evidences and even the parties to whom the sales are affected did not attend before the AO despite the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. According to AO, the assessee failed to produce these parties and also failed to produce documentary evidences like copies of ledger accounts, bills raised against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplier before him. I also agree to the reliance placed by the A. R on various judgement cited by him and do not find any force in the contention of the learned D. C. I. T. that such purchases are unexplained expenditure and therefore, I direct the AO to delete addition of ₹ 6, 89, 02, 425/- made u/s 69. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us the learned Sr. DR, argued that the assessee has failed to produce the documentary evidences before the AO and even the party from whom the purchase is affected, has not respond to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. Hence, he requested that the matter be restored back to the file of the AO for verification of unexplained purchases. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO and AO has not looked into any of the documents and the same were again repeated and filed before CIT(A), which are now being filed before the Bench. 5. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that once, the details before the AO as well as before CIT(A) and now before Tribunal, the purchases are fully vouched, explained and genuine. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that even the sales made out of these purchases in next year have never been doubted by the AO. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the above narrated facts, which are uncontroverted, that the purchases made are genuine and supported by bills and vouchers, tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted details of such expenditure and also produced original vouchers for verification in the course of assessment proceedings. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has claimed staff welfare expenses at ₹ 1, 74, 683/- and salary and incentive expenses at ₹ 85, 34, 906/-. Similarly, the assessee has also claimed sundry labour expenses at ₹ 59, 22, 211/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings disallowed 25% of staff welfare expenses and salary incentive expenses. Similarly, the AO also disallowed 20% of sundry labour expenses. The AO disallowed the same in the absence of bills and vouchers. Aggrieved, assessee preferred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
