9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). In this situation we do not find it necessary to interfere with the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on the issue as those Orders are quite judicious. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) towards non-deduction of TDS on interest payments - CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any other argument in support of his case - HELD THAT:- Before us also the Ld.AR could not furnish any explanation to support his case. Therefore we do not find any other option but to confirm the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is devoid of merits Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Before the Ld.CIT(A) also the assessee could not ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of commission paid amounting to ₹ 7,20,110/- invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO who made disallowance of ₹ 1,89,429/- U/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non-deduction of TDS on interest payments. (iii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO who had made addition of ₹ 1,60,124/- as unexplained expenditure U/s.69C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in retail trade of iron and steel, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.08.2012 admitting total income of ₹ 43,95,030/-. The cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry promotional activities due to which the assessee could achieve high turnover. It was further submitted that the assessee s related parties has included the commission received from the assessee as its income and paid tax. Hence it was pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO which was further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) may be deleted. The Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities and pleaded for confirming the same. 4.2 After hearing both sides, we do not find much merit in the submission of the Ld.AO. The assessee had paid commission to unrelated parties @ of 0.625% on turnover and at the same instance the assessee has paid commission to its related parties at the rate of 2.03% on the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure U/s.69C of the Act:- It was further observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee had made cash payments amounting to ₹ 1,60,124/- towards repayment of loan, the source of which was not explained. Therefore the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 69C of the Act, and added the same in the hands of the assessee as unexplained expenditure. Before the Ld.CIT(A) also the assessee could not explain the source of repayment of loan by way of cash. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO. However on perusing the case of the assessee, we find that the assessee had declared total income of ₹ 43,95,030/-. Considering the total income declared by the assessee we are of the consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
