9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - scope of amendment - retrospective effect - Held that:- We set aside this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the Hon’ble Court upheld the order of the Agra Bench of ITAT in Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA) and held that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative and hence retrospective in nature. Grounds of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes Disallowance under the head staff welfare expenses - amount was paid to one Mr. Md. Latif by way of two cheques - Held that:- Mr. Latif is a local politician and subscription is given for local puja purposes and also the amount has been disallowed on the ground that no evidence has been produced by the assessee. We find no infirmity in the same and uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the assessee. Addition of bogus purchase of diesel - assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to the addition made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 29,681/- on account of alleged discount received from M/s. Delta Chemicals. 3) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to the addition of ₹ 1,41,723/- made by the AO. on account of alleged bogus purchase. 4) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,99,800/- on account of alleged unreconciled closing balance as on 31. 03.2010 of UBI, CC account by wrongly invoking the provision of sec. 69A 5) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to the addition of ₹ 24,358/- made by the AO. on account of alleged dyeing charges received treating the same as undisclosed income. 6) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 97,000/- made by the A.O. under the head Transportation Charges by wrongly invoking the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 4. Ground Nos. 2, 3, 5, 12 14 are dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground No. 1, is on the addition of ₹ 1,14,720/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged discount received from M/s. Dyechem International Pvt. Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition on the ground that the assessee should have reduced this amount from his purchases but had malafidely shown cash payments of equal amount to M/s. Dyechem International Pvt. Ltd. and has failed to prove the same with documentary evidence. During the course of hearing, the assessee had changed its stand and hence the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in question. We find no infirmity in the same, and hence dismiss Ground No. 1 of the assessee. 6. Ground No. 4 is against an addition of ₹ 7,99,800/-, which is an unreconciled closing stock balance as on 31/03/2010 of a cash credit account with United Bank of India (UBI). The ld. CIT(A), at page 7, last para of his order held as follows:- The assessee is claiming that the cheque of ₹ 8 lacs was not deposited in the bank by it. However, the bank statements of Cash Credit a/c clearly shows that ₹ 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no infirmity in the same and uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the assessee. 9. Ground No. 8 is against the disallowance of ₹ 59,000/-, under the head staff welfare expenses. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the same to the smallness of the amount hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No. 9 is on the disallowance of ₹ 11,79,341/-, on the ground that there was bogus purchase of diesel. The assessee could not produce all the vouchers as evidence of purchase of diesel before the Assessing Officer. When the matter came up before the ld. CIT(A), all the bills were produced. After examining the bills, the ld. CIT(A) at pages 10 to 12 of his order has given reasons as to why he is unable to deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are that:- a) The assessee has shown huge purchases of diesel for almost 20 to 22 days in a month. b) Though there is a current running account with M/s. Rajendra Krishi Seba, the payments were made in cash in odd figures and some payments were made in cheques. c) There is no relationship between the payments and the purchases. d) Amount betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
