9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee could not explain the nature of the expenditure, the AO made the addition to the returned income - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee has claimed that the interest was paid on advance received on sale of flat which was cancelled subsequently, no details were made available either in the assessment proceedings or in the appeal proceedings. The assessee is supposed to furnish the details with regard to flat No., identify the buyer etc. to claim the expenditure. Without having furnished the above details, the AO cannot verify the genuineness of the expenditure. It also appears that the AO did not make any effort to collect the details. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-examine the issue in detail and decide the issue afresh on merits. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of commission, salary, electrical works, land development charges, carpentary works, NMR works, painting works etc - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee is maintaining the books of accounts and the books of accounts were duly audited by qualified Chartered Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in ITA No.10550/2019-20/CIT(A)-1/VSP/2020-21 dated 16.09.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 and cross objections are filed by the assessee . 2. Ground No.1, 6 and 7 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is related to the disallowance of amount of ₹ 5,74,016/- and ₹ 77,000/- as not related to business expenditure. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had claimed the interest expenditure of ₹ 5,74,016/- related to the amounts advanced to VVCIPL under the head business income . Therefore, the AO called for the explanation of the assessee as to why the said expenditure should not be disallowed and brought to tax. In response, the assessee stated that the expenditure of interest was claimed under business income , however, the assessee had received the interest of ₹ 6,80,516/- from VVCIPL and the same was offered to tax under the head other sources, thus, no expenditure was claimed on amounts advanced to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The second issued in ground No.3 is related to the addition of ₹ 77,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the amount of ₹ 77,000/- on account of profits admitted. Since the assessee could not explain the nature of the expenditure, the AO made the addition of ₹ 77,000/- to the returned income. 8. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee is in the business of construction and sale of flats and the interest amount is related to the interest paid on advance received for sale of flats which was cancelled subsequently. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure and accordingly deleted the addition. 9. Against which the department is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Though the assessee has claimed that the interest was paid on advance received on sale of flat which was cancelled subsequently, no details were made available either in the assessment proceedings or in the appeal proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the threshold limit for deduction of TDS. The AO did not identify each payment and the quantum of TDS that is required to be made. It is the obligation of the AO to ascertain the details of payments made to each person from the books of accounts and determine the TDS liability to make the addition. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not place any material to controvert the finding given by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. 15. The next ground is cash deposits made in the bank account during demonetization period. The AO asked for the sources for cash deposits of ₹ 11,50,000/- made in the bank account. Since the assessee could not explain the source of the cash deposit to the satisfaction of the AO, he made the addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 16. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and explained the source of cash deposit as withdrawals from the bank account which were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Since the assessee has explained the source of cash deposits as withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
