9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come which would be miniscule. The entire modus operandi of these transactions were explained by those parties in the statement given on oath before the ld AO. The fact of these creditors rendering services to the assessee is not denied or disputed by those parties or by the revenue. All these parties except one party had appeared before the ld AO with their respective identity proofs and statement recorded on oath from them. The fact of reimbursement of expenses made by the assessee is not disputed by the revenue before us and hence the corresponding liability thereon cannot be disputed. None of those creditors had denied having rendered services to the assessee. - Additions deleted. - Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A No. 1859/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Shri A.T. Varkey, JM And Shri M.Balaganesh, AM For The Appellant : Shri S. M . Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 27/ CIT(A)-9, Wd-31(1)/2016-17/Kol dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 Add: Payable for the year - ₹ 46,06,609.62 Closing Balance as on 31.3.2013 - ₹ 4,16,53,151.20 The break up of job charges payable for the year were furnished by the assessee as under:- a) Transportation charges including detention charges - Pasupati Roadways Corporation 14,20,200/- b) Manoj Tiwari (Container Survey Repairing charges) 2,96,800/- c) Saroj Tiwari (Cartoons Plastics, Tape, etc) 3,21,610/- d) Md. Israil (Labour Charges) 4,10,800/- e) Md. Islam (Crane Charges) 4,05,000/- f) Md. Ismail (Container destuffing / stuffing charges) 5,94,000/- g) Md. Ismail (Coopering Ceiling charges) 2,93,700/- h) Md. Israil (Overtime charges for labour) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; that they were working jointly under the name of Pasupati Roadways Corporation which had transactions with the assessee and that they do not have any outstanding balance in their individual capacity with the assessee as on 31.3.2013 . Having said this, they further deposed that they might have some small amount outstanding due from the assessee which they don t remember and they don t have any proof for it. They further deposed before the ld AO regarding the reply sent by Pasupati Roadways Corporation directly that they don t have any idea about income tax and hence on receipt of the said notice , they had given it to Tushar Pandit, the partner of M/s Kunal Exim ( i.e the assessee herein) who in turn handed over to his advocate for preparation of the reply and that they had signed on the dotted lines in good faith. 2.5. In response to the summons u/s 131 of the Act, Md. Ismail and Md. Israil appeared on 3.3.2016 before the ld AO , but Md. Islam did not appear. They were asked to appear with supporting documents and books of accounts which were not produced except their identity proof and daily dock permit. Their statement was recorded on oath by the ld AO. The contents of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn in their names are to be accepted as genuine. No details were submitted in respect of inspection charges of ₹ 7,02,500/- and hence he upheld the addition made thereon. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2.8. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, we find that the expense creditors did not deny having transactions with the assessee. It is not in dispute that those creditors were not having any idea of income tax and accordingly had handed over the 133(6) notice to assessee s partner and had signed on the replies given by the advocate of the assessee. The entire transactions have been confirmed by them before the ld AO by way of deposition in statement on oath. We find that the creditors had only stated before the ld AO that they are all small time labourers and workers and do not have that much income left with them. We find that they had deposed correctly that in as much as their income component in the entire services rendered to the assessee would be miniscule but the total transactions carried out through them for and on behalf of the assessee would be more. The assessee had engaged them for rendering of specific services . The assessee cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 2,96,800/- (Manoj Tiwari) ; ₹ 3,21,610/- (Saroj Tiwari) and ₹ 4,05,000/- (Md. Islam) treating them as bogus liabilities. 2.9. The ld AR at the time of hearing stated that the addition made towards inspection charges of ₹ 7,02,500/- was not pressed by him. The same is reckoned as a statement from the Bar and accordingly the same is treated as dismissed as not pressed. 2.10. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 3. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in treating the interest income on fixed deposits as income from other sources in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee derived interest income as under :- Interest from HDFC Realty Fund - ₹ 2,59,071/- Interest on FD - ₹ 7,71,238/- Interest on Loan - ₹ 2,53,018/- ₹ 12,83,327/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
