9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come under the provisions of TDS, because, Chennai Port Trust is a Government Organization and thus, TDS has not been deducted. We find that although the assessee has filed various details including confirmation from the party and copies of debit notes to prove that it is a reimbursement but not direct expenses incurred by the assessee, the AO simply ignored all the evidences filed by the assessee and made additions. Therefore additions made towards harbour expenditure for non deduction of TDS, is not sustainable and hence, we direct the AO to delete the addition made towards harbour expenditure. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 3343/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2022 - SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s especially when copies of all relevant documents were filed during assessment proceedings and also before the Appeal Commissioner and when such documents were relied upon and one of the additions made in the original assessment were deleted by the previous Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and the same should have been taken in to account for this appeal also. 5. The learned CIT Appeals has overlooked the submissions made and has erroneously stated that ITR. Financials, assessment order, enquiries made during the original assessment are not available on record when the same were produced before CIT Appeals in paper book thus turning a blind eye to the written submission and evidence produced in the form of paper book during the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd round of litigation, the AO called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences including proof of harbour expenditure. In response, the assessee filed ledger extracts along with copies of debit note and argued that harbour expenditure has been incurred by M/s.Trimex Minerals (P) Ltd., on behalf of the assessee. The AO deputed Inspector of his Office to verify the claim of the assessee. The Inspector of Income Tax reported that no such party is available in the given address. Therefore, the AO opined that expenditure claimed under the head harbour expenditure is not genuine and thus, made addition of Rs.21,60,162/- for total income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made towards harbour expenditure. 4. The Ld.AR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
