1980 (7) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e accordingly disallowed an amount of Rs. 750. The assessee's case before the CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal was that the telephone at the residence of the partners was not used for personal or non-business purposes. In our opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly rejected this contention. 3. The next objection pressed before the Tribunal is in respect of the retention of Rs. 4,000 out of Rs. 6,073 for expenses of essential items on work site. During the course of the assessment proceedings the ITO found that the assessee had incurred expenditure on entertainment, miscellaneous expenses and messing expenses in its Khamaria quarters account, Boys Regiment quarters and Misc. Work account. The ITO found that in the earlier years also the disall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand when he came to Jabalpur to collect the sum. In these circumstances the payment was made. Further, the assessee had also relied on a circular of CBDT wherein the Board has directed that if the transaction is made at a place where the purchaser or the seller did not have a bank account the allowance should be made. The CIT(A), however upheld the disallowance on the ground that the identity of Ramnarayanan Singh was not established. We are not inclined to agree with the CIT(A) that the identity of the payee is not established. Because this was the person from whom the assessee hired the machine which is still in the possession of the assessee and the assessee is paying the rent for the machine as and when demanded. Therefore, the iden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mounted to Rs. 94,145. However, in view of the IAC's direction u/s 144B of the Act he confined the addition to Rs. 50,000. Similarly, in the Beladilla work after making the estimate at 15.8% against the estimate of Rs. 92,658 he made an addition of Rs. 10,000 only. On an appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A) he was of the view that the ITO proposed an addition of Rs. 94,000. The IAC had taken a more reasonable view and ordered that the addition to be restricted to Rs. 50,000. In the opinion of the CIT(A) this addition was very fair and there was no scope for rejection. Even after this rejection the profit in this year will be lower than those taken by the assessee in the earlier years. He, therefore, confirmed the addition. Likewise he a....