9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the Suspense Account and not in the individual expenditure accounts. The Assessing Officer had held that the AR had not furnished any details to substantiate this claim accounted under Suspense Account. 3. On appeal before CIT(A) the Assessee submitted as under: The Assessing Officer made an observation that certain amounts were debited to the suspense account when the amount was paid and the said suspense account was transferred to various accounts in the profit and loss account. It is humbly submitted that when the amounts have been paid to the Site In-charge till such time that the actual account for which the amount would be debited are known the amount would be lying in the suspense account. On receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the basis of above submission the CIT(A) held that as the amounts debited to suspense account have been subsequently transferred to respective accounts the disallowance is not sustainable and accordingly deleted the addition. 6. On appeal, the Revenue has raised a specific ground before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has neither offered any explanation nor provided any details and hence he could not verify the allowability of the claim. While we hold that the expenditure is to be allowed in the year in which they were incurred, even though in the accounts it may not have been reflected in the proper accounts on account of administrative difficulties, we accept the objection of the revenue that these evidences do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted for disallowance of 15% of the expenditure. 9. On the merits of the case, it was contended by the learned counsel that such line of business engaged by the assessee requires the employment of labourers from rural areas and it may not be possible to obtain documentation to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this connection, we refer to the decision of Hon ble AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., 256 ITR 701 wherein the Hon ble Court held that mere payment by itself would not entitle the assessee to deduction of expenditure unless the same was proved to be paid for commercial considerations. The burden of proof is always upon the assessee. It is for the taxpayer to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a)(ia) have no application. We find that these details were not furnished before the Assessing Officer or if furnished were not examined by him. 11. In so far as Tipper and Tractor hire charges the Assessing Officer while verifying the certificate received by the assessee and even found correct deleted the addition of ₹ 13,50,250/- and ₹ 7,56,000/-. 12. In respect of mixture and proclaim hire charges the Assessing Officer will verify whether payments made to individual persons is less than limits prescribed under sec 194C and if so, such payments will not require deduction of tax at source u/s.194C. Accordingly AO may verify if the submissions of the Assessee before the CIT(A) and if found to be correct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
