TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds. 1. The Ld. CIT (A)-II, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.19,67,294/- as being hit by provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-II ought to have deleted the addition. 2. The Ld. CIT (A)-II has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,560/- under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. On the fact and circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A)-II ought to have deleted the addition. 3. The Ld. CIT (A)-II has erred in partly confirming the addition on account of gross profit. The Ld. CIT (A)-II ought to have deleted the entire addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....educted and paid to the account of Government. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Before us it was contended by the Ld. A.R. that the assessee on becoming aware about its responsibility to deduct TDS, has deducted TDS and paid it to the account of the Government. He pointed out to the submission made by it before CIT (A) and which has stated in para 2.2. of the CIT(A) order. He therefore, submitted that since the assessee has made the payment of TDS the disallowance made by the A.O. be deleted. The Ld. A.R. further relied on the decision of Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport vs. ACIT (ITAT Vishakapatnam) (ITA No.477/Viz/2008). He therefore, urged that the addition u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee had made payments aggregating to Rs.2,52,800/- by cash/bearer cheque each of which were more than Rs.20,000/- 12. The A.O. invoked the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) and disallowed 20% of the payment made in cash (disallowance being Rs.50,560/-). Aggrieved by the decision of A.O. the assessee carried the matter before CIT (A). 13. After considering the submissions of the A.R., CIT (A) upheld the decision of A.O. by holding that assessee's did not fall under any of the special conditions specified in Rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules. 14. Against the above confirmation of the disallowance the assessee is now in appeal before us. 15. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the payments in cash were made to transporters who were unk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10% and of M/s. Shreeji Transport at 4%, thus an addition of Rs.65,366/- was made in the account of M/s. M/s. Shreeji Transport and Rs.3,46,578/- in the account of M/s. Yamuna Trading Co. In all the A.O. added Rs.4,11,944/- to total income. Assessee aggrieved by the decision of A.O., carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (A). 19. After considering the submissions of the A.R., CIT (A) granted partial relief by observing as under:- "4.3. I have considered the submissions of the Authorised Representative and the order of the Assessing Officer. Gross profit ratio cannot be constant year to year. At times there will be higher gross profit and depending on the exigencies of the business at other times the app....