9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Disallowance being short term provisions appearing in the balance sheet on the basis of fresh evidence - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had observed that if the Assessing Officer had looked at the further details of the balance sheet it would have revealed that the said provision amount comprises of unpaid interest, provision for expenses and warranty which was also reflected in books of accounts available before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 is dismissed Disallowances of spare part expenditure - Expenditure claimed for the first time - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee is an autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of ledger account as well during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 78/Rjt/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2022 - MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT D.R. Respondent by : None ORDER PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals)-1, Rajkot for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 1. The Ld. CITA) has erred on facts and in law in entertaining new evidences without calling for remand report and thus viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest on advances made by it. The LD. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has made notional addition of interest income, whereas, the language Of the assessment order is that, there is disallowance out of interest expenditure. 6. The LD. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 19,82,629/- made u/s. 40(a) due to qualification made by the auditor in the audit report, on the ground that TDS has been deducted. 7. The LD. CIT(A) has erred to appreciate that, no evidence in this regard was given to the AO and no proof of the same is filed during the appellate stage even the appellate is not taking the plea that it had deducted and paid TDS (as can be seen from the submission of the assesse reprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mated to the registry by the Assessee. Hence, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee reproduced by the CIT(A) in the order as submissions before us. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has admitted the new evidences without calling for remand report and thus, the Assessing Officer has not verified the evidences produced during the appellate proceedings. As regards to Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made under Section 43B out of VAT and Entry Tax on the ground that in the revised return the assessee has added back the same. However, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the items covered under Section 43B totalled to Rs. 3,68,54,079/- and income as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alification made by the auditor in the audit report, on the ground that TDS has been deducted without any evidence given by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings and no proof of the same was filed during the appellate stage though the assessee never took the plea that it had deducted and paid TDS. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1, it can be seen that from the submissions of the assessee reproduced by the CIT(A), there is no mention of additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and therefore calling for remand report is not justifiable. In fact, the assessee had filed the details at the time of assessment proceedings which is incorpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a valid reason for disallowing the same. Ground No. 4 is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 5, the addition was on notional income and the Assessing Officer could not point out that the assesses was entitled to receive such interest. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). Ground No. 5 is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 6 and 7, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that due TDS has been deducted and paid subsequently on such amounts. In fact, the assessee has given the copy of ledger account as well during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are dismissed. 7. In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
