9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t require separate adjudication. 3. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not press ground No.2 which is related to disallowance of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 18,84,836/- made by the AO towards the disallowance of making charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had debited the sum of Rs. 19,95,454/- to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance 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 Rs. 14,81,351/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and find that the payment was made to goldsmiths for making charges. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the entire payment was made to three heads of goldsmiths ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 1,72,705/- between the VAT returns and the books of accounts maintained by the assessee in respect of purchases. The assessee has shown excess purchases as per the books compared to VAT returns. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not reconcile the difference, hence the AO made the addition. 9. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
