9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the various details filed by the assessee and offer his comments and the CIT(A) shall decide the issue thereafter as per fact and law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds No.1 and 2 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition on account of interest on TDS - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2008 (10) TMI 230 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] deleted the addition. The ld. DR could not controvert with any evidence so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the ld.CIT(A). Since the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition basing on the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Undisclosed gross receipt - HELD THAT:- CIT(A), while reducing the addition from ₹ 44,21,688/- to ₹ 4,94,250/-, has verified each and every entry and has given a factual finding which could not be controverted by the ld. DR. Since the order of the CIT(A) is based on factual aspect which remains uncontroverted by the Revenue, therefore, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 44,21,688/- towards undisclosed gross receipt is concerned, he directed the AO to reduce the same to ₹ 4,94,250/-. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- (I) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the addition of ₹ 1,02,99,973/- towards unverifiable purchase. (II) In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the addition of ₹ 77,79,975/- towards labor purchase. (III) In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the addition of ₹ 1889 /- towards payment of interest on TDS. (IV) In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of ₹ 44,21,688/- towards undisclosed gross receipts to ₹ 4,94,250/-. (V) That the appellant craves, leave to add, amend or modify the ground(s) of appeal at any time. 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered various de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable in the case of the contractor. In this light, the addition made under this head is deleted. 7. So far as the order of the CIT(A) deleting the above two additions are concerned, we find the assessee has not given the requisite details before the AO for which he made ad hoc disallowances. The ld. CIT(A), while deleting the above two additions have neither called for a remand report nor given an opportunity to the AO. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising Marketing (P) Ltd., 375 ITR 373 , has held that although it is the obligation of the AO to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event of AO failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper enquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by AO on ground of lack of inquiry. Similarly, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. reported in 245 CTR 397, has held that where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of Rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accounts of the appellant as well as from 26AS statement. From this, it is gathered that out of the total amount of gross receipt of ₹ 23,33,93,490/- the interest income is of ₹ 32,18,001/-. This interest income has already been shown by the appellant in the P L account in the following manner: - Particulars As per 26AS As per P L account Remarks Interest from Dena Bank 1727620 1833081 The appellant has shown excess income of ₹ 105461 Interest from PNB 1490381 996131 The appellant has shown less income by ₹ 494250 During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant was asked to explain the same and in response it is explained that this income of A.Y. 2012-13 has already been shown by the appellant in A.Y. 2015-16 in the following manner:- A.Y. 2012-13 Particulars Amount Interest Income (PNB) as Profit loss A/c for the F.Y. 2011-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VISION and EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BORDER FENCING DIV-V, SECTOR H 0 BSF CAMPUS BARMER of ₹ 7,23,701/- and ₹ 95,430/- respectively is excess income shown in the gross receipt as per P L account. The remarks column of the above mentioned chart 'shown in next year and 'shown in A.Y. 2013-14' indicates about the income shown as per 26AS in subsequent years and the remarks shown in previous year dated 26.03.2011' and 'shown in previous year dated 15.05.2011 indicates the income shown by the appellant in the P L account. After verification, I have come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has wrongly added the difference in the gross receipt. Form 26AS is a statement generated at the end of the year, and the appellant cannot be in any manner held responsible for such discrepancy. In case of doubt, the matter is to be investigated by the Assessing Officer in the light of system of accounting, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do in the present case. The Assessing Officer have also failed to see that interest income from Dena Bank and PNB has separately been shown in the P L account. In this light, the additions of ₹ 39,27,438/- (44216 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
