9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of salaries and wages to various employees and even AO failed to ask for any details before making such ad hoc disallowances, we are inclined to delete the addition made by the AO which is a mistake apparent on record and clearly mistaken presumption. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Shivansh Bansal, CA, Shri Pallavi Gupta, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR. ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT (A)] dated 25.01.2024 for the Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted by the Assessing Officer and it was submitted that the assessee was never asked for any evidences during the assessment proceedings and Assessing Officer cannot make ad hoc disallowances. After considering the remand report, response to the remand report and the assessment order, ld. CIT (A) dismissed various grounds including additional grounds raised by the assessee and in the result, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) u/s 250(6) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary in contravention of law and judicial precedents, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that as per Schedule 22 of the Notes to Accounts, it is clearly mentioned as personnel expenditure claimed by the assessee of Rs. 2,72,21,201/- and Assessing Officer has wrongly presumed the same as personal expenditure which is actually personnel expenditure . With the above observation, Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowance of 10% without asking for any documentary evidence nor he gave a reason for making ad hoc disallowance @ 10%. Further, he brought to our notice page 32 of the paper book wherein the assessee has given details of salary payment made to the employees along with respective PAN numbers of employees and wages and other benefits paid to workers. He vehemently argued that Assessing Officer has wrongly considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
