9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CD and called for explanations from the assessee. Ld. AO also enquired on the claim of certain expenses made in the P&L Account for their justification. Certain queries were also raised in respect of reconciliation of entries contained in Form 26AS. Considering the submissions and explanations of the assessee, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making the additions, details of which is reproduced hereunder: 2.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), before whom submissions were made for each of the grounds taken in appeal, who gave partial relief on certain additions and sustained the others. It is noted that for the addition sustained, Ld. CIT(A) briefly noted as under: "I have considered the grounds of appeal statement of facts and submission of the authorized representative of the appellate company as well as the order of the assessing officer framed in the light of the materials available on record before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AO has mentioned that the assessee was unable to explain how these expenses were related to business of the assessee. I agree with the view as taken by the AO in the matter. Kee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t report in Form 3CD was obtained by the assessee from the tax auditor on 26.09.2015. Till this date of 26.09.2015, assessee had not paid bonus to its employees of Rs.5,20,300/- which was paid on 27.09.2015 and on the same day, assessee had filed its return of income. Ld. Counsel thus submitted that this bonus of Rs.5,20,300/- was paid before filing of the return by the assessee and hence, rightfully claimed the deduction. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had submitted that the deduction in respect of payment of bonus should have been allowed as it was paid before the filing of the return. Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on orders of authorities below. We find that there is no documentary evidence available on record in respect of the claim of payment made by the assessee of Rs.5,20,300/- on 27.09.2015 even though it has been claimed to have been so paid. In the given set of facts, we find it proper to remit this matter to the file of Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification of fact averted by the assessee. We direct the Ld. AO to consider the claim of the assessee if the verification reveals that the amount has been paid by the assessee before filing of return for which no addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cultivation and manufacturing of tea. Also, the ld. CIT(A) has given stereotyped findings by stating the observation of the ld. AO for sustaining the addition, without dealing with the matter on merit. 3.2 These expenses of Rs.1,01,473/- incurred by the assessee towards general expenses for garden are not covered as described in section 30 to 36, these are not capital in nature or personal expenses of the assessee, it being a widely held company. Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on orders of authorities below. There is nothing brought on record to suggest that these are not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. We, therefore, direct to delete the disallowance made in this respect. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed. 4. Ground no. 3 relates to ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.67,191/- from the miscellaneous/general expenses claimed by the assessee by applying an estimate rate of 20%. The actual claim of the assessee in respect of miscellaneous/general expenses is of Rs.3,35,952/- comprising of guest messing and at garden and other expenses. In this respect, ld. Counsel submitted that books of account of the assessee are audited and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusive proof of accrual or receipt of any income in the hands of the assessee. For this contention, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of i2i Telesource Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No. 6823/Mum/2017 dated 18.02.2019. He also referred to the CBDT instruction no. 5/2013 dated 08.07.2013. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the AO has rightly made the addition on account of entries in Form 26AS by treating it as undisclosed income of the assessee. 5.2 We have heard rival submissions and gone through the material placed on record. We find that the explanation given by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relating to the ledger account of Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for FY 2012-13 and thereafter needs to be verified by the ld. AO to ascertain the correct fact as to accounting treatment given in respect of interest income. We thus, set aside this issue before the Ld. AO for a limited purpose to make proper examination and verification of the claim of the assessee and decide it in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and make any further submission in this respect. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. AO that these are paid in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- as prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Assessee made payment of Rs.23,000/- towards system repairing and Rs.50,945/- towards water pollution consent fees which the ld. AO disallowed on the ground that such payments were made in cash. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition. Ld. Counsel submitted that in respect of payment of Rs.23,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- were paid for non-encumbrance certificate of Dalamara Division for which reason was furnished and for the balance of Rs.13,000/- though there is no documentary evidence available but was paid to the department. In respect of payment of Rs.50,945/-, it was submitted that it was a regular annual payment to the water pollution control board, Assam, which was paid by issuing a demand draft. In this respect a debit voucher was furnished and thus, it was claimed that no disallowance ought to have been made for this payment. He further submitted that incurring of these expenses by the assessee is not in dispute except for mode of their payment. Ld. Counsel submitted that this issue may be restored to the file of ld. AO for verification of the documents furnished to which ld. Sr. DR did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
