9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue, whether the amounts are reimbursement to the employees, cannot be examined. Moreover, being the identical amount to all the employees, the payments appear in the nature of allowance rather than reimbursement of actual expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee. No error in the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. - ITA No.1070/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 30-10-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Shri R.M. Mehta, CA Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the medical field. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30/09/2011, declaring loss of ₹ 3,12,06,323/- which was further revised on 06/11/2012 due to inadvertent claim of excess TDS. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) was completed on 13/03/2014 at assessed loss of ₹ 2,24,69,930/- after making addition of ₹ 75,83,824/- and ₹ 11,52,572/-. The addition of ₹ 75,83,824/-was made on account of excessive claim of the salary in the name of Dr. Rajen Ghadiok and Ms. Rachna Karma. Addition of ₹ 11,52,572/-was made for non-deduction of tax at source on the difference of amount in salary debited in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned employees, evidencing payments to claim the alleged reimbursement, was furnished. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the alleged reimbursement was nothing but a fixed amount being paid in cash to the employees, which being in the nature of the salary/fixed allowance, on which TDS was deductible. In view of absence of any documentation to support the alleged reimbursement, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained that amount of ₹ 2,88,143/- for both the employees, namely, Dr. Rajen Ghadiok and Ms. Rachna Kamra, totalling to ₹ 5,76,286/-. In respect of balance amount out of ₹ 75,83,824/-, relief was also allowed subject to verification of the TDS in the government account. 2.2 The disallowance of ₹ 11,52,572/- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment from the assessee. In absence of any such documentary evidences, the learned CIT(A) has held the amoount debited in the profit and loss account of ₹ 2,88,143/- to each of the six employees as in the nature of the salary/fixed allowance on which TDS was deductible, and in view of the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct TDS, he sustained the disallowance. The relevant part of his finding in case of disallowance of ₹ 11,52,572/- is reproduced as under: 4.2. The AO noted that there was a difference in the salary claimed in the P L A/c and as per Form No. 16 issued to four employees. He accordingly, treated the difference of ₹ 11,52,572/- on which TDS was not deducted and also since no docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any documentation to support the alleged reimbursement, the disallowance of ₹ 11,52,572/- made by the AO is in order and is sustained. This ground of appeal is ruled against the appellant. v 5. In respect of the disallowance of alleged reimbursement to two employees, namely, Dr. Rajen Ghadiok and Ms. Rachana Kamra also, he sustained the disallowance on similar grounds. 6. We find that the learned CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance mainly on the ground of non-production of details of evidences, therefore, to support its ground of appeal, the onus was on to the assessee to produce those relevant documents before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee did not produce any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
