9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not otherwise established from any matter. Thus, the issue needs to be restored to the files of Ld. AO to take into consideration the confirmation submitted by the assessee from M/s. Steel Grace India Pvt. Ltd. and tendered along with the letter dated 18.03.2013 and thereupon decided the disputed addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- afresh. Accordingly, ground no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Assessee justifies the entry of loan made on 31.03.2010 by general voucher entry after receiving letter dated 22.03.2010 form HUDA. AO had made the addition primarily on the basis of lack of documentary evidence which were sufficiently produced before CIT(A) and where rightly taken into consideration to delete the addition. The submissions raised before this Bench on behalf of the Revenue have no substance as Ld. CIT(A) having coterminus powers with Ld. AO had duly considered the evidence of assessee. Accordingly, this ground is decided against the Revenue. Addition u/s 41(1) in respect of various sundry creditors - HELD THAT:- The letter dated 18.03.2013 has also been placed before this bench and it shows that annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and added the difference amount to the total income and the same were sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, assessee has come in appeal raising following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-22, Delhi erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer making a disallowance of Rs. 19,63,146/- being expenditure claimed u/s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on account of non deduction of tax at source. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-22, Delhi erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.30,28,996/- being the difference between balance as per the assessee and balance as per confirmation by the parties u/s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-22, Delhi is sustaining the above disallowance/addition has not appreciated the submission/evidence filed by the appellant before the assessing officer and in appellate proceeding. The order on this count in vitiated and the addition are liable to be deleted. 4. That the assessee prays for leave to add, amend, alter or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to deduction of expenditure in the subsequent year in which TDS is deposited. Accordingly, no interference is required in the findings of Ld. CIT(A). The issue is decided against the assessee. 7. Ground no. 2 in appeal of assessee ITA No.306/Del/2020. It can be observed that Ld. AO had invoked Explanation 1 of Section 41 of the Act on presumed remission of trading liability of Rs. 30,28,996/-. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the basis that there is nothing in the form of evidence to substantiate the claim of assessee. What is relevant is that while determining this ground of addition of Rs. 30,28,996/-. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 9.1 as observed. 9.1 In appeal it is submitted that this addition has been made purely on the basis of the enquiries made behind the back of the appellant. The appellant has again relied on its submissions dated 18.03.2013 in support of its case that the provisions of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 cannot be applied. The finding of the AO on this issue in the remand report is as follows: 6. As regard to the addition on account of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.1,52,47,641/- Rs.30,28,996/-,during the course assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 35,00,000/- afresh. Accordingly, ground no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. 10. In regard to ground no. 1 in appeal of revenue ITA no. 837/Del/2020. It was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in deleting the addition. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in regard to the amount deposited with HUDA in 2005, the assessee introduced it as a loan only year, 2010. It was submitted that the information available in the impugned order does not show if Ld. CIT(A) had taken into consideration the fact as to in whose name the draft was prepared and tendered with HUDA and what was the source of Sh. K.M. Kshetry. It was submitted even the question of payment of interest on the fixed deposited required indulgence of the Tax Authorities and therefore the issue having loose ends should be restored for verification. 11. On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- was deposited by one of the Directors Sh. K.M. Kshetry directly with HUDA, though on behalf of the company however, due to inadvertence it could not be reflected in the accounts and only when the lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
