TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....76/Mum/2010 (by assessee) 4. Ground No.1 is against the sustenance of addition of income from house property Rs.57,850/-. 5. The brief facts of the above issue are that the AO from the capital account of the assessee noted that the assessee has received rent of Rs.82,600/- by letting out the property situated at flat No.502, Ocean CHS, and 205 friend CHS at Koper Khairane. He further noted that the receipt of the said rent has not been offered for taxation in the return of income. Accordingly, the AO after allowing 30% deduction from the annual value of the property worked out taxable income under the head income from property at Rs.57,820/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submissions, remand report of the AO and other relevant material, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submissions as submitted before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) further submits that the said flat is owned by the assessee's daughter, therefore, the said income was not included in the return of income of the assessee and hence the addition mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Ms.Usha Menon and Deepa Travels are appearing in the earlier year's balance-sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2005. However, from the confirmation letters filed by the assessee, we observe that there is difference in the old balances and current years figures which the assessee could not reconcile even at this stage. Since the loan creditors are old and the confirmation letters were filed by the assessee for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we are of the view that in the interests of justice the matter should go back to the file of the AO and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the Revenue authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh in the light of our observations hereinabove and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground Nos.3 and 3.1 are against the sustenance of adhoc addition of cash expenses u/s 40A(3) Rs.16,61,945/-. 15. The brief facts of the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO after examining the details of expenses fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the absence of any explanation, the disallowance made by the AO be restored and the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed. 18. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has filed complete details of expenses of labour charges, salary wages, staff welfare, site expenses, vehicle repairs etc. and hiring charges. The AO without pointing out any payment in cash by the assessee over Rs.20,000/- made disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the assessee has made no cash payment over Rs.20,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report from the AO. The AO in the remand report without rejecting the claim of the assessee that no cash payment was made over Rs.20,000/- stated that "the assessee's contention is not acceptable. Assessee has submitted kaccha confirmation copies without any address and PAN and genuineness of the same cannot be verified. The same may be considered on merits." The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the same while holding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n paid late, none of the expenditure where the payment of the expenditure has been made up to February 2006 are allowable and accordingly he disallowed the whole of the expenses of Rs.4,95,71,184/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act with the remark that as the TDS deducted has been paid in the next financial year the same is allowable in the next year. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), after examining the matter however, allowed the relief of Rs.31,69,275/- on the ground that the assessee to the extent has made TDS within time and some of the payments are less than Rs.20,000/- in a year, therefore TDS provisions are not applicable. 21. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that since the assessee is an individual, therefore, the TDS provisions of section 194C (1) are not applicable. He further submits that the said provisions was extended to individual and or a HUF as a result of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2008 with effect from 1.6.2008 and since the case of the assessee is prior to the said period, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS and therefore there is no default on the part of the assessee and for this proposition the reliance was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....84/-, made by the AO be restored and the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard be reversed. 23. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that the assessee is an individual and has deposited the entire amount of TDS of Rs.2,96,316/- on 8.6.2006 i.e. prior to the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 24. In Virgin Creations (supra), it has been observed and held : "We have heard Mr. Nizamuddin and gone through the impugned judgment and order. We have also examined the point formulated for which the present appeal is sought to be admitted. It is argued by Mr. Nizamuddin that this court needs to take decision as to whether section 40(A)(ia) is having retrospective operation or not. The learned Tribunal on fact found that the assessee had deducted tax at source from the paid charges between the period April 1, 2005 and April 28, 2006 and the same were paid by the assessee in July and August 2006, i.e. well before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration. This factual position was undisputed. Moreover, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess the above ground which was not objected to by the Ld. DR. 29. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the learned counsel for the assessee, the ground No.7 taken by the assessee is, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 30. Ground Nos.8 and 9 are against the sustenance of addition of work-in-progress (WIP) Rs.9,07,506/-. 31. The brief facts of the above issue are that from the record the AO observed that the assessee during the year has shown net Work-in-progress Rs.1,81,50,131/- (opening WIP Rs.39,49,866/-closing WIP Rs.2,20,99,997/-). The assessee was asked to furnish the relevant details. In the absence of any details, the AO treated 5% of the WIP Rs.1,81,50,131/- as income of the year under consideration which he worked to Rs.9,07,506/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the views of the AO confirmed the addition made by the AO. 32. At the time of hearing, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is following consistent method of accounting. The AO on mere suspicion added Rs.9,07,506/- being 5% of the net WIP. He further submits that no dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that this ground does not arise from the order of the Ld. CIT(A). This being so and keeping in view that at the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee neither argued the above ground nor filed any written submissions in this regard, therefore, the ground taken by the assessee is rejected. ITA No.4984/Mum/2010 (by Revenue) 41. Ground No.1 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.5,30,000/-. 42. The brief facts of the above issue are that the AO from the cash summary statement noted that the assessee has received gift of Rs.5,30,000/- from his father. The assessee was asked to furnish evidence in support of the same. Since the assessee has failed to file any explanation or evidence, the AO treated the credit entry appearing in the bank statement as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the remand report observed that the AO has indirectly accepted the contention of the assessee by saying that the documentary evidence has been submitted by the assessee to prove the receipt of gift, deleted the addition made by the AO. 43. At the time of hearing the Ld. DR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 is against the deletion of disallowance of bad debt Rs.2,77,290/-. 48. The brief facts of the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed bad debt of Rs.2,77,290/- in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee has not provided any relevant details, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submissions and remand report of the AO allowed the claim of the assessee. 49. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submits that since the assessee has not filed any detail, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. He, therefore, submits that the disallowance made by the AO be restored. 50. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has written off a sum of Rs.2,77,290/- in his books of account, the details of bad debts, ledger account and copy of every debtor account are appearing at pages 211 to 217 of the assessee's paper book. In the remand report, the AO agreed that all conditions necessary for writing off bad debts are complied with by the assessee. He, therefore, submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings recorded in paragraphs 23 to 26 of this order in assessee's case, wherein we have deleted the entire additions made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) and partly sustained the by the L ld. CIT(A), therefore, in view of the same findings, the ground taken by the Revenue, is rejected. 56. Ground No.5 is against the deletion of disallowance u/s 41(1) Rs.23,45,876/-. 57. The brief facts of the above issue are that the AO noted that the assessee has shown various creditors outstanding amounting to Rs.68,46,459/- on account of purchases. The assessee was asked to furnish confirmation of the creditors namely (a) Dashmesh Cables Rs.84,276/-, (b) Eskay Enterprises Rs.9,779/-, (c) Panva Engg Rs.7,36,652/-, (d) Poonam Enterprises Rs.44,700/-, (e) Sai Chhaya Rs.18,800/- and (f) Star Delta Rs.14,51,674/- aggregating to Rs.23,45,876/-. In the absence of any confirmation filed by the assessee, the AO added the above amount of Rs.2345876/- u/s 41(1) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while observing that the addition was made by the AO on the basis of the conjecture and surmises without making any inquiry to establish the fact that section 41(1) was applicable, deleted the addition made by the AO. ....