TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciation on car and jeep respectively, ignoring the facts, detailed reasons discussed by the AO in assessment order. Therefore the learned CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the above relief to the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,635 on account of labour expenses ignoring the facts, detailed reasons discussed by the AO in assessment order. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the above relief to the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to adopt the same basis as has been adopted for the same year as per order dt. 25th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd not reliable. Accordingly, 10 per cent of the expenses were disallowed. The learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. It has not been denied that as observed by the learned CIT(A), the disallowance in question was an ad hoc disallowance. The AO had not required the assessee to furnish the addresses of the labourers. The expenses were disallowed without any test check. It was not pinpointed that which item of expenditure was not verifiable. Accordingly, the (deletion of) disallowance in question was correctly ordered. We hold so. Ground No. 2 is rejected. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to additions made by the AO under the head of truck hire charges, machinery hire charges and roller hire charges. The AO observed that the assessee had not main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned CIT(A) cannot be said to have erred in directing the AO to adopt the same basis as that taken for asst. yr. 1996-97. Therefore, ground No. 3 is also found to be devoid of force. It is rejected. The last ground pertains to the learned CIT(A) having allowed part relief to the assessee against addition of Rs. 21,85,501 on account of interest on FDRs. Vide a detailed order, the learned CIT(A) has observed that the FDRs on which the interest was earned, were purchased by the assessee for the purpose of purchasing overdraft and getting bank guarantee. It was found that the bank guarantee as well as overdraft had been utilized for business expenses of the assessee. It was in this view that the interest earned on the FDRs was considered as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice the Tribunal order dt. 15th Feb., 2000 in ITA No. 1746/Del/1997 for asst. yr. 1996-97, i.e., the Department's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order in the first round. In this order, the Tribunal, apropos the addition of Rs. 2,18,550, on account of interest on FDRs, has not adjudicated upon it in view of the fact that the CIT(A) had set aside this issue to the file of the AO. We, while dealing with ITA No. 3009 in the preceding paras, have upheld the subsequent order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard. Regarding the issue of disallowance out of labour expenses, we have decided this matter in favour of the assessee. The deletion of addition has been upheld. So far as regards the addition....