9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpect the work bills, confirmations from the goldsmiths for their work. They are unorganized sector, makes the work and receives the daily payment. Also common that the head goldsmith brings the group of labour along with him and collect the charges and distributes to the remaining labour force. Since the assessee has furnished the details of head goldsmiths and the payment was not suspected, there is no reason to apply the provisions of section 194C and the 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The payment made was less than ₹ 20,000/- and aggregate payment does not exceed the sum of ₹ 50,000/- as per the details furnished by the assessee. This fact was not disputed by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Vijayawada in Appeal No.10149/CIT(A)/VJA/2019-20 dated 30.07.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. Ground No.1 and 6 are general in nature which does not require separate adjudication. 3. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not press ground No.2 which is related to disallowance of ₹ 4,70,309/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ). Therefore ground No.2 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.5 is related to the addition of ₹ 2,16,124/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards disallowance of municipal taxes which was not pressed by the assessee. Therefore, ground No.5 is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground No.3 is related to the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment was shown below ₹ 20,000/- and the aggregate of such payment during the year was shown below ₹ 50,000/- in the case of each goldsmith, thus viewed that the payment was below the threshold limit specified u/s 194C and consequently, no disallowance is called for on account of payment of making charges. However, the Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidence in support of the said explanation during the appellate proceedings, by way of copies of work bills raised by individual gold smiths who were stated to have been paid the making charges through the head goldsmith. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of ₹ 14,81,351/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition of ₹ 14,81,351/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7.1. In respect of the remaining amount of ₹ 4,03,485/-, since the assessee failed to furnish the details either before the AO or before the Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed. 8. Ground No.4 is related to the addition of ₹ 1,72,705/- made by the AO towards the difference between the purchases reported in VAT returns and purchases recorded in the books of accounts. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that as per the VAT return, there was difference of ₹ 1,72,705/- betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
