TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing professional fee paid to Shri Dharmesh Sheth. b) The Ld CIT (A) erred in upholding AO's findings that the appellant maintained cash system of accounting ignoring the plethora of material filed including certificate from auditor to evidence that the appellant was following mercantile system of accounting. c) The Ld CIT (A) erred in giving finding that justification of payment and commercial expediency for Rs.6,69,49,500/- paid to Dharmesh Sheth was not provided, while both the lower authorities had not questioned justification and the issue was centered only on the method of accounting adopted by the appellant. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not adjudicating the charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the IT Act." 3. During the proceedings before us, at the very outset, Shri Prakash Jothwani, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought the attention of the Bench to the paper book filed by him and mentioned that page 102 to 210 are being filed before the tribunal for the first time and most of them were not filed before the lower authorities too. As per the certificate of the assessee on the said paper book, the assessee did not furnish the same before the CIT (A) too. In fact, some of the papers were not filed before the AO too. Referring to the Sl.No.3 & 5 of the paper book i.e. Assessment Orders of Shri Bhavesh for AY 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 and letter dated 2.11.2010 addressed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the additional evidence, Ld CIT-DR opposed the said admission and mentioned that these papers were actually available with the assessee at the relevant point of time but the same were not filed for the reasons better known to the assessee. Therefore, the additional evidences sought to be admitted now, should not be entertained at this stage. 5. We have heard both the parties on this issue of admission of additional evidences and find that the AO made addition of Rs.6,69,49,500/- on the ground that assessee has not paid the said amount in the year under consideration and the same was paid undisputedly in the year relevant for the assessment year 2011-2012 after making TDS on 8.12.2010. The said TDS was paid only after the discovery of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntile system of accounting or not and whether the assessee received the services from Shri Dharmesh Sheth to become for such payments. Perusal of the orders reveals that there is inadequacy of papers / evidences for allowing the claim of the assessee. Thus, there is necessity of the papers filed now before us in support of the claims of the assessee. 6. In our opinion, the admission of these additional evidences is a requirement for adjudication of the issues under consideration in a judicious manner. We, therefore, find no reason to reject the prayer of the assessee and proceed to admit the same. However, considering the 'principles of natural justice' for verifying the genuineness of these documents as well as the contents mentioned th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to outstanding expenses of Rs.62,246/- and it is a prayer of the assessee's Counsel the same has to be decided in the light of the finding of the Tribunal whether the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting or cash system of accounting. As per the Ld Counsel, the adjudication of this ground is consequential to the finding of the fact by the Tribunal in ground no.1 of the present appeal. We find, the said issue in ground no.1 is set aside in view of the additional evidences filed before us. Therefore, for want of consistency, we set aside this ground also to the files of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, ground no.4 is set aside. 9. Ground no.5 relates to disallowance of Rs. 25,99,959/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In thi....