9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer merely on estimate basis cannot make the addition. Thus, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not correct in making this addition on estimated basis. TDS u/s 194C - sums credited or paid during the year to the contractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, on furnishing PAN, to the person paying or crediting the such sum - scope of amendment in section 194C(6) - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer while making additions has not taken proper cognizance of the documents produced at the time of assessment proceedings by the assessee. Therefore, it will be appropriate to admit the additional evidence at this juncture and remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify this issue in light of the various documents produced by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground partly allowed for statistical purpose. Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the relevant documents were not produced before the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the learned Assessing Officer which is unjustified and be deleted. 5. That under the facts law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis out of transportation expenses for non-deduction of tax at source, rejecting the explanation which is unjustified and be deleted. 6. That under the facts law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 10,50,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer being loan taken from Smt. Radha Devi Agrawal rejecting the evidences filed. Prayed that the appellant discharged the burden of proving the identification, credit- worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, hence the addition of ₹ 10,50,000 - be deleted. 3. The assessee is an individual and derives income from contractorship business through his proprietory concern M/s B. P. Agarwal, Korba. The assessee filed income tax return for AY 2010-11 at ₹ 38,58,195/- which was assessed by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 59,62,855/- u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of 30% depreciation and ₹ 50,000/- out of maintenance expenses the same was not based on any specific basis by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Besides, the Ld. AR submitted that the documents were provided before the revenue authorities but the same was not properly considered by the Revenue. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify this issue in light of the various documents produced by the assessee before him. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 1 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 8. As regards Ground No. 2, relating to addition of ₹ 30,000/- as notional income from house property, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had to visit Bilaspur from time to time for obtaining work orders, filing tenders and other documentation works at Bilaspur. Therefore, it was the need to have office at Bilaspur and the assessee has used the premises for business purpose only. The Ld. AR further submitted that admittedly no benefit was derived from the house property in the year under reference and no dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer while making additions has not taken proper cognizance of the documents produced at the time of assessment proceedings by the assessee. Therefore, it will be appropriate to admit the additional evidence at this juncture and remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify this issue in light of the various documents produced by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 5 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15. As regards to Ground No. 6, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee at the relevant time was not having sufficient time to prove his claim as the documents/evidence were not readily available with the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the same may be verified by the Assessing Officer at this stage. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that there was unsecured loans of ₹ 10.50 Lacs taken from Smt. Radha Agrawal. To verify the genuineness, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
