9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the addition after examining the remand report submitted by the AO - CIT(A) noted that the A.O. could not come up with even a single case where TDS was to be deducted as per law and there is no allegation of freight expenses in question were bogus. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition - In absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the D.R, we find no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground of appeal no.2 of Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Addition on account of loading and unloading expenses - assessee had not deducted the TDS on account of loading and unloading expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had only restricted the addition to the extent TDS which was deductible and deleted the balance addition out of the total addition made by the A.O. Since the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we, therefore, confirm his order and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No.7641/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2022 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee failed to establish the genuineness of creditors. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.5,66,23,307/- towards freight expenses by ignoring that the assessee was not entitled to produce additional evidences/documents during the appellate proceedings as per clause (b) of rule 46(1) in view of the fact that the assessee was accorded sufficient opportunities to file documentary evidences during assessment proceedings. iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.53,17,313/- towards loading and unloading expenses by ignoring that the assessee was not entitled to produce additional evidences/documents during the appellate proceedings as per clause (b) of rule 46(1) in view of the fact that the assessee was accorded sufficient opportunities to file documentary evidences during assessment proceedings. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring that the out of payment of Rs. 53,17,313/-, an amount of Rs.28,00,349/- paid to Goods Transport Labour Board, Mumbai was liable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies in the assessment order, but, added entire sundry creditors including the 05 parties which is contradictory. However, on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after calling the remand report from the A.O. deleted the addition made by the A.O. He, accordingly, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 8. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find force in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in his order that the A.O. himself has admitted in the remand report dated 13.08.2014 that there were 05 parties whose names and amounts were same in the two lists submitted by the assessee and the total amount of creditors is also not disputed by the A.O. Further, the A.O. had not admitted the documents/evidences filed by the assessee before him. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue are as under : 8.39. Similarly, the explanations given by the Assessee in the Written Submissions filed along with the Application under Rule 46 A were brushed aside. It is seen that the Accountant of the Assessee sometimes mentioned the name of the Agent through whom he arranged the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has neither in the Assessment Order, nor in the Remand Report made out any case for disallowance of Freight Expenses amounting to Rs.5,66,23,307/-, as is apparent from the above discussion. Hence, the disallowance of Freight Expenses on the ground at TDS was not imposed was not at all justified, as the Assessing Officer could not come up with even a single case where TDS was to be deducted as per Law, but was not deducted by the Appellant. There is no allegation that the Freight Expenses in question were not paid or were bogus. Hence, there is no justification for disallowance of Freight Expenses amounting to Rs.5,66,23,307/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.5,66,23,307/- is hereby deleted . 11.1. From the careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we have noticed that he had deleted the addition after examining the remand report submitted by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the A.O. could not come up with even a single case where TDS was to be deducted as per law and there is no allegation of freight expenses in question were bogus. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition of Rs.5,66,23,307/-. In absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.1,40,563/- , thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for the balance amount of Rs.53,17,313/-. We find that the A.O. in his order has failed to point out on which payments the assessee had not deducted TDS. Further, the A.O. also had not considered the Certificate issued by the DDIT (Exemptions) during the assessment year under consideration, as per which, TDS was not applicable in respect of wages and levy received and thereby, the assessee had not deducted TDS. However, the A.O. simply brushed aside the Certificate issued by the DDIT (Exemptions) and made the addition, which is not sustained as per law. We, therefore, find no fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue are as under : 8.28. Section 194C(5), as applicable for the period 01.04.09 to 31.03.10, i.e. the previous year relevant to AY 10-11 (the year under consideration) is as under : (5) No deduction shall be made from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of, or to, the contractor, if such sum does not exceed twenty thousand rupees : Provided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
