TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36/- unconfirmed expenses/purchases treated as bogus expenses Rs.19,82,188/- and late payment of PF and ESIC Rs.80,330/-, vide order dated 31.3.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ground Nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee read as under: "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing labour expenses/purchases of Rs.7,93,064/- on account of normal difference in balances as per the appellant and the suppliers. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition u/s 69 on account of short difference in balance as per the appellant and suppliers/sub-contractors". 6. Brief facts of the above issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO has issued notice u/s.133(6) to purchases parties and sub-contractors with whom the assessee company has entered into transaction during the year. On the basis of this information, the AO has noticed that there was discrepancy in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recovery effected by the appellant amounting to Rs.3,65,813/- Further, an amount of Rs.35,489/- was not considered by the appellant during the year. 6. Gupta Pneumatics (sub-contractor) 3,97,300/- 4,15,293/- (17,993) It may be mentioned that the difference has arisen mainly on account of difference and rate @ Rs.15 per hour. We therefore submit that this is purely a business transaction and therefore addition cannot be made. 7. Satish Construction 1,34,299/- 31,570/- 1,02,729/- Ledger account of the above party is available at page No. 82 of the paper book. 8. Ultra Elevators Pvt. Ltd. (sub-contractor) 4,76,100/- 5,29,000/- (52,900) Out of the above amount a Bill of Rs.10,000 was not accepted by the appellant. Further, the AO has mentioned that the balance as per inquiry u/s.133(6) is Rs.5,29,000/- and as per the appellant is Rs.4,86,100/- It may be mentioned that the ledger copy of the account of the said party [inquiry u/s. 133(6)] was not given to the appellant at the time of assessment. 9. Om Construction (sub-contractor) 17,69,080/- 15,74,585/- 1,94,495/- The ledger....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of any material to show that the reconciliation/ explanation submitted by the assessee was not filed before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that the addition of Rs.7,20,228/- on account bogus claim of expenditure and Rs.72,836/- on account of unexplained expenditure added u/s 69C made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are not sustainable and accordingly we delete the same. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, allowed. 10. Ground No.3 taken by the assessee reads as under : "3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing sub-contractor expenses/purchases of Rs.19,82,188/- treating it as bogus expenses on the ground that confirmation of these parties were not produced at the time of assessment." 11. Brief facts of the above issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that no confirmation was received from four parties mentioned at page 8 of the assessment order where the transactions of Rs.19,82,188/- are noted. Accordingly, he has given a show cause notice to file confirmation and reconcile the transaction with these parties. In response, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed confirmation from Mayan Handicrafts along with TDS certificate(supra). In the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue against the said confirmation and keeping in view that the said material was available before the AO even during the remand proceedings and also keeping in view that the Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed the said remand report in the appellate order we are of the view that the assessee has fully discharged his burden to the extent of Rs.10,52,600/- in the account of Mayan Handicraft. 15. As regard the addition in the account of Shri Devji Laxman Rs.1,99,864/-, M/s Sachin Construction Rs.3,55,622/- and Hariom Rs.3,74,102/-, the assessee has placed no material on record to show genuineness of the above transactions. In the absence thereof we while up holding the addition in the account of Shri Devji Laxman Rs.1,99,864/-, M/s Sachin Construction Rs.3,55,622/- and Hariom Rs.3,74,102/- delete the addition of Rs.10,52,600/- in the account of Mayan Handicrafts. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. 16. Ground Nos.4 and 5 taken by the assessee read as under: "4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in fact....