9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , quotation/ agreement/work order and its the terms and conditions - Ground no. 1 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance being difference in form 26AS and P L A/c - oversight TDS amount could not be deposited -HELD THAT:- It is too the case of the Revenue Department here that the Assessee has already claimed the TDS during the relevant assessment year in respect of amount credited in the FY 2011-12 or any other assessment year. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Abbott Agency [ 2013 (10) TMI 1173 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] which was also relied upon in the case of M/s Kema India Private Ltd. Vs. ITO [ 2022 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI ] we are inclined to allow the claim of TDS in the year under consideration. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned Commissioner, which is under consideration stands allowed. Ground-2 is allowed. - ITA No. 1665/DEL/2020 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2023 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Subhash Singhal, Ld. CA For the Department : Shri B.M. Singh, Ld. Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginate from DCIT assessment order, amounts to enhancement adverse to the appellant. Though empowered by law in sec 251(l)(a), and 251(2) the proper procedure as given in law for enhancement-issue of show cause notice, allowing fair opportunity to appellant and to pass an speaking on the issue is totally missing in this case. Such an action of CIT (A) as per law be deleted/cancelled. 4. The Act of Id CIT (A) in not granting the credit of TDS and taxes paid being raised in grounds of appeal no.6 before him, is not correct/justified. He has simply directed the AO to grant the same in place of doing it himself. It is prayed that the credit of taxes paid and TDS be correctly allowed. 4. For brevity we are deciding this appeal by ground-wise. 5. Ground no. 1 pertains to the addition/disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the learned Commissioner on account of repair of false ceiling by treating the same as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure as claimed by the Assessee. 5.1 The AO by perusing the P L account of the Assessee found that during the financial Year 2013-14 the Assessee had paid Rs.5,76,21,563/- on account of AC Repair Mainten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cooling towers, repair replacement of pumps and overhauling of chillers and overhauling of air conditioning ducts. The Assessee also drew our attention to page 5 of PB , which is invoice dated 24.2.2014 issued by Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Ltd., which pertains to repair and overhauling charges to the tune of Rs. 1,20,70,000/-. 7. On the contrary, the learned DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that building of the Assessee is more than thirty years old and at that particular time there was no false ceiling concept at all and therefore the claim of the Assessee seems to false and fictitious and thus both the Authorities below have rightly treated the expenditure incurred as Capital in nature . 8. In rejoinder, the Assessee claimed contrary to the claim of the Ld. DR and reiterated its claim. . 9. We observe that from the invoice dated 24.2.2014 as well as work order dated 30.1.2014 nothing is clear whether the entire area i.e. 177500 sq. ft. which is claimed by the Assessee for repair, maintenance, modification and overhauling of air conditioning ducts, got damaged completely or partly . It is also not clear whether false ceiling was replaced with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year ended on 31.03.2013 on accrual basis. Copies of confirmation letters dt. 02.12.2016 received from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.are enclosed for your perusal. 10.1 The AO by considering the submission of the Assessee found that the Assessee has not furnished any reconciliation statement regarding its claim. From the submission it is not clear, in which year the difference amount was considered in P L account and to what extent. The Assessee also failed to submit the details as called for and filed no proper explanation regarding the issue. The Assessee did not file any proof regarding the consideration of discrepancy (ledger etc.). Moreover the Assessee was also requested to give explanation for not considering the gross bill amount as revenue during this year. The AO finally held that the Assessee failed to give satisfactory explanation and also failed to justify the revenue as shown in the accounts. Therefore the contention of the Assessee is not acceptable. The difference amount of Rs.31,39,695/-(Rs. 9,23,41,724/ Rs. 8,92,02,029/-) as occurred between 26AS and P L account is therefore added to the total income of the Assessee. 11. On appeal, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
