9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment was in fact reimbursement of expenditure to the concerned party, however no evidence was brought on record to prove that contention - we do not find any reason to interfere with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of liquidated damages - As per CIT-A the said expenditure was not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business of the assessee, rather the said damages were paid because of the violation of the terms of the contract - HELD THAT:- A.O. has pointed out that there is payment of damage and it is on violation of terms of the contract. When it is violation of contract terms and conditions than it is very much penal in nature and accordingly, the A.O. has ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Bench These present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 10.04.2018 09.05.2018 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') for AYs 2012-13 2013-14 respectively. 2. Though the assessee was supposed to follow up its appeals, however, separate notices were also issued regarding the fixation/date of hearing of the appeal by the Registry. However, the said notice has been received back with the remark Left . Even the earlier Counsel for the assessee, Sri Subash Agarwal, Advocate was contacted telephonically who informed that he has no instruction on behalf of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing. 4. Ground No.-1 Vide ground No. 1, the assessee has contested the disallowance of ₹ 16,73,566/- made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter the 'AO') on account of non deduction of tax at source (TDS) by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. D/R has brought our attention to the relevant observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, wherein, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that though the assessee had claimed that the said payment was in fact reimbursement of expenditure to the concerned party, however no evidence was brought on record to prove that contention. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore upheld the disallowance made by the A.O. observing as under: I have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and after hearing the Ld. D/R, we do not find any reason to interfere with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 4. Ground No.-2 Vide ground No. 2, the assessee has contested the confirmation of disallowance of liquidated damages of ₹ 21,17,589/-. The Ld. D/R has brought our attention to relevant paras of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the impugned disallowance was made by the A.O. and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) because the said expenditure was not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business of the assessee, rather the said damages were paid because of the violation of the terms of the contract. The Ld. CIT(A), further observed that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that the assessee had claimed that the aforesaid expenditure was made in cash and that no bills, vouchers, evidences/confirmation etc. were furnished to prove that the said expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee. The AO, considering the overall facts and circumstances has made the disallowance of 50% of the aforesaid expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance observing as under: I have considered the submissions of the authorized representative of the appellant as well as the assessment order framed in the light of the materials available on record before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The A.O. has mentioned that the most of the expenses were made in cash and the evidences were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
