TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case, the Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in deleting the disallowance of stock loss of Rs.20,88,189 made by the AO in the impugned assessment order ignoring the findings on records which clearly prove that the Paradeep Port Trust (PPT) had certified the physical existence of all the imported Coal till 20.02.2006 in the PPT stock yard where assessee's imported Coal was kept. 02. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance of addition made u/s.40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.41,86,571- on the ground that a claim for reimbursement of expenses supported by documentary evidence cannot be considered for purpose of TDS u/s.194C. - when it is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,88,189 on account of stock loss, Rs.41,86,571 u/s.40((a)(ia) and Rs.1,81,000 being the electricity service connection fees holding as capital in nature besides making additions/disallowances of Rs.1,32,431 made in the original assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, who after considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the assessee deleted the additions of Rs.20,88,189, Rs.41,86,571 and Rs.1,81,000. He however, confirmed the addition of Rs.1,32,431. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal disputing the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the additions on the grounds as already stated above. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88,189. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee explained as under: 'With reference to your summons dated 7.12.2009, we submit the following documents details for your kind consideration in your clause no. 04 of the above summons the loss of 2600 MT of coking coal is due to the Flood and the same was washed into the sea due to heavy rain and flood, because we have purchased coking coal on High Seas Basis from the Importer i.e. M/s Apex Energy Resource Ltd. Through Vessels by sea vide invoice No. AERL/LAKE/TegA/2005/PARADIP/019 dated 06.09.2005 as this consignment is a High Seas sale. We have credited the value of 3500 Mt and we have received only 900 Mt. Therefore, we have issued debit note for 2600 Mt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uperintendent of Customs, Paradeep on 21.02.2006 and P.D.Com Test Bond No. 882/05-06 dated 20.02.2006 and Test Memo No. 945/05-06 dated 20.02.2006 indicate the existence of stock till 20.02.2006. Stock statement submitted by the assessee also confirmed the fact that the stock was available till Feb. 2006 and it was lost only in the March 2006. Earlier it was a claim of the assessee that the stock loss was in April 2005 and this claim was revised during the current proceeding and the loss was declared in the month of March 2006. If the discharge voucher as referred earlier is to be believed then the stock should not have been available with the assessee till March 2006. Therefore, in view of the factual contradiction the Assessing Officer ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd and evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A)and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication strictly following the principles of natural justice. 7. As regards Ground No.2, the relevant facts are that on examination of the ledger account of Apex Energy Resources Ltd., the Assessing Officer found credit entries on different dates totaling Rs.41,46,571. The Assessing Officer observed that such expenses include stevedoring charges, intra-port transportation charges etc., which are in the nature of payments on which TDS should have been deducted by the assessee. Having not deducted tax at source, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of expens....