9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued but the same was presented in the bank at subsequent date and therefore, the withdrawal date from the bank is different from the entry date in the cashbook. But at the same time, we do not find do not know whether on entry date in cashbook any benefit has been taken by the assessee in respect of cash in hand. We, therefore, remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether on the date of entry the assessee has utilized the alleged withdrawal of cash for making the payment/investment or for any other purpose and if the AO does not find any utilization of cash, then the addition should be deleted. Disallowance of depreciation claimed - AO was of the opinion that the assessee is claiming deduction on lease rent as expenditure and is also claiming depreciation on the said building, accordingly, disallowed the claim of depreciation - HELD THAT:- Assessee vehemently stated that on the leased property in the assessment year 2008 09, the assessee has made substantial addition which was capitalized by it and on such capitalized expenditure, the assessee has claimed depreciation as per provisions of law. We are of the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT[A]- 20, New Delhi dated 16.03.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1, 3 and 5 and the same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of ₹ 6,05,150/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Briefly stated, the facts relating to this grievance of the assessee are that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction for interest on borrowed funds under section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] amounting to ₹ 6,05,150/-. The assessee was asked to furnish documentary evidence with regard to the loan taken as the same was used for the acquisition of the said building situated at Jasola, Okhla industrial area, New Delhi. 5. The assessee explained that the loan has been taken from M/s Perfect Turner for the purchase of the property and filed loan confirmation. The submission of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, made addition of ₹ 7,02,000/-. 15. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without success. 16. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that though the cheques were issued for withdrawal of cash from bank and simultaneously entries were made in the cashbook but cash withdrawals were made subsequently, therefore, the dates do not match with the bank statement. 17. We have carefully perused the bank statement qua the date of cheque and date of withdrawal from the bank. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The entries have been made in the cash book on the date on which the cheque was issued but the same was presented in the bank at subsequent date and therefore, the withdrawal date from the bank is different from the entry date in the cashbook. But at the same time, we do not find do not know whether on entry date in cashbook any benefit has been taken by the assessee in respect of cash in hand. We, therefore, remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether on the date of entry the assessee has utilized the alleged withdrawal of cash for makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the AO disallowed the entire expenditure of ₹ 7,41,482/- 25. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance. 26. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that only payment made on account of M/s Pest Control was subject to TDS under section 194C of the Act and on which tax has been deducted at source and balance amount is petty expenditure incurred on day to day maintenance of the building. 27. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings of the AO/CITA. 28. We have carefully considered the order authorities below. It Is true that on payment of pest control expenses, the assessee has deducted tax at source and has fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 194C of the Act. To this extent no disallowance should be made. 29. In respect of balance, no details of day to day expenditure have been furnished before us. We, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to furnish details of day to day expenditure on account of building maintenance and the AO is dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
