9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are on distinguished facts. It is further noted that AO has only disallowed ₹ 5 lacs out of ₹ 2.10 crore claimed as site expenses and ₹ 3 lakhs out of ₹ 1.24 crore claimed as expenses on account of consumables, hence, the amount of disallowances are quite justified and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the additions on these counts, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on these additions and accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee stand dismissed. Addition u/s. 68 - differences in the receipts declared by the assessee and the receipts shown in Form 26AS - HELD THAT:- Difference is mainly on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the difference as per the accounts of the assessee and the amounts on which TDS had been deducted by the parties as per Form 26AS, the authenticity of which the assessee had no access. 3. That the orders of the Ld. authorities below being contrary the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appeal be allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 20.9.2012 declaring income at ₹ 51,98,820/- and later the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was issued on 6.8.2013. Again notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the AR fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly confirmed the disallowance out of expenses claimed under the heads Site Expenses (₹ 5.00 lakhs) and Consumable (₹ 3.00 lakhs). He further submitted that ld. CIT(A) also wrongly confirming the addition of ₹ 3,18,279/- u/s. 68 of the Act being the difference as per the accounts of the assessee and the amounts on which TDS had been deducted by the parties as per Form 26AS, the authenticity of which the assessee had no access. In support of his contention, he filed a small Paper Book containing pages 1-51 i.e copy of letter to CIT(A) with enclosures i.e. copy of balance sheet and accounts for the year ended 31.3.2012; copy of ledger account and bill raised on Pratiba Industries; copy of ledger account and bills raised on Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 crore claimed as site expenses and ₹ 3 lakhs out of ₹ 1.24 crore claimed as expenses on account of consumables, hence, the amount of disallowances are quite justified and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the additions on these counts, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on these additions and accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee stand dismissed. 5.1 As regards addition of ₹ 3,18,279/- u/s. 68 of the Act is concerned, we find that this addition relates to differences in the receipts declared by the assessee and the receipts shown in Form 26AS in mainly on account of mobilization advance which is taken into receipts as and whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
