9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineness of expenses incurred on Manoj Pandey, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. Assessee has submitted that the amount paid to Manoj Pandey was only ₹ 19,99,250/-. Accordingly we confirm the disallowance to the tune of ₹ 19,99,250/-. The balance amount has been claimed to have been paid to M/s Sonal Enterprise (₹ 5.00 lakhs) and Shri Krishna P Vaidya (₹ 2.20 lakhs). Since both these payments require examination, we restore them to the file of the assessing officer for examining them. Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - AO disallowed interest expenses paid on unsecured loans as the assessee failed to prove that due TDS was deducted from the payments - CIT(A) als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year in question. In the instant case, we notice that the impugned directions given by Ld CIT(A), which are extracted above, were not at all necessary for disposing of the issue before him and accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in giving the above said direction. Accordingly, we set aside the same. - ITA No. 6066/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2019 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri R.C. Jain For the Respondent : Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.AR-CIT ORDER Per B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member: The assessee has filed this appeal, challenging the order dated 30-08-2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional evidences to support his case. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of expenses and hence the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. 4. The question of invoking the provisions of sec.40A(3) shall arise only if the expenditure is otherwise proved. In the instant case, the tax authorities have disallowed the claim of expenditure, since the assessee has failed to prove the same. Hence we do not find merit in the submission of Ld A.R that the disallowance may be restricted to 20% of expenses by following the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of expenses incurred on Manoj Pandey, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the direction given by Ld CIT(A) u/s 150(1) of the Act. The facts relating thereto are discussed in brief. As noticed earlier, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of reimbursement of expenses. In view of the same, the Ld CIT(A) also gave following direction to the AO: 6. The A.O is directed further to verify past and subsequent years of ROI filed by assessee to examine whether these expenses have been claimed therein also. If so, after conducting appropriate enquiry/Return of income verification and recording reason to believe the assessment should be reopened u/s 147. Instruction issues u/s 150(1) power vested in me. 9. The contention of Ld A.R is that the power given u/s 150(1) of the Act is restricted to the issues conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are co-terminus with that of the AO and has powers to enhance the assessment but that is confined to the assessee and a finding or direction, while disposing of the appeal, must be a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment year in question. In the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Sons P. Ltd. 257 ITR 518 at page 522 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court approved the findings of the Appellate Tribunal by observing as under: Before closing, we would like to say a word about the direction of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Officer to bring the amount in question to tax under the head Income from house property in the respective assessment years to which the income relates. This direction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
