TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee had made bogus purchases. The records of the assessee had disclosed purchase of "Morum" from one Mr. Amit Kumar amounting to Rs.14,76,416/- and "sanitary wood" and "fire word" from Mr. Sajjied of Rs.1,67,570/-. The assessee has furnished the bills of those parties. However, the AO was of the view that those bills were fabricated. Since, the assessee was unable to substantiate the correctness of the purchases to the satisfaction of the AO, therefore, an addition of Rs.17,59,225/- was made. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority. 4. Before learned CIT(A) the assessee has furnished party- wise details of the purchases. In respect of the purchases made from Mr. Amit Kumar, it was submitted that the said party is a supplier of "Morum" from Haridwar. The assessee was given a contract to fill up a land with "Morum". The payment was made to the assessee on the basis of the actual measurements. The bills of the assessee were verified by an architect. That contract was given by M/s. 21st Century Printers Limited, BHEL, Haridwar. The assessee has also informed the PAN of Mr. Amit Kumar. As far as the objection of non reference of sales tax and CST regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... am of the considered opinion that the appellant has proved the genuineness of the purchases. Considering the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant relief to the appellant in this ground of appeal. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed." 5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) has rightly appreciated all those evidences which were rejected by the AO without assigning any convincing reason. The commodity supplied were not subject to sales tax, therefore, the CST/ST number were not mentioned on the bills. Further, it has also been noted that in respect of some of the parties, the entire amount could not be paid during the year under consideration, therefore, the part of the amount remained outstanding which was paid in the subsequent year through account payee cheques. Learned CIT(A) has examined those evidences as well and considering the facts of the case held that the purchases were genuine. The view taken by learned CIT(A) is hereby confirmed and the ground taken by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 6. Ground No.2 is reproduced below: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f in the Books of accounts. Thus I am of the opinion that the same is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT CIVIL APPEAL NO.5293 of 2003, dated February, 9, 2010 wherein the apex court has held that "after 1st April, 1989 it is not necessary for the Assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the Accounts of the Assessee." The Assessee's case is squarely covered under this decision and the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.7,63,040/-. Thus this ground of appeal is allowed." 8. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the case law cited of TRF Limited (supra) we are not inclined to intervene with the factual as well as legal finding of learned CIT(A) on the issue of write off of sundry balance. In the result we find, no force in this ground of the Revenue. Hence dismiss. 9. Ground No.3 is reproduced below: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,49,400/- made out of wages cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round of appeal is allowed." 11. Submissions of both the sides have been considered. Once the admitted factual position was that the turn over had increased then the wages should also have been increased because the assessee is a civil contractor. There was no cogent evidence in the possession of the AO that the wages have been inflated by the assessee. We are of the view that an ad-hoc addition was without any basis. Considering the nature of the expenditure and the surrounding circumstances of the case; we hereby affirm the view taken by the learned CIT(A). In the result, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 is reproduced below: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unexplained creditors, without considering the fact that the assessee did not file the balance confirmations duly certified by the opposite parties, though requested from time to time." 12.1 The AO had made an allegation that the assessee had not furnished the confirmation hence prepared a list of 51 persons in whose accounts the outstanding balances were more than Rs.50,000/-. The assessee was aske....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted in the earlier year. In this circumstances I am inclined to grant relief. Thus the appellant gets relief of outstanding in this group amounts to Rs. 25,17,767/-. 9.4.2 With regard to Group 15 involving 15 parties with whom there were transactions of purchases during the year. The appellant gets relief in the similar analogy as in the case of Group A parties applied in this group of cases to the extent of opening balances. With regard to the bills pertaining to the year standing unpaid at the end of the year, I am not fully satisfied with the explanations given by the Assessee. The primary onus of proving an expense is on the Assessee which is not discharged to the satisfaction of the AO. To this extent the addition is sustained. Thus in these parties the appellant gets relief of Rs.8,58,673/-. Thus out of Rs. 20,02,861/-, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance at Rs.11,44,188/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 9.4.3 With regard to Group C involving 13 parties with whom there were transactions in the nature of a sub-contract during the year. It is verified from the records before me that all these parties are subjected to tax deduction at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,98,554/- without considering the fact that the payment of TDS was made into the government in contravention of the provisions of Section 200(1) of the Act, 1961." 17. It was noted by the AO that payment of Rs.2,24,67,670/- was made to contractor and the assessee was asked to furnish the details of the TDS deducted. In the absence of the details of TDS, the AO had made the addition of the entire payment. 18. Before learned CIT(A), the submissions of the assessee was that the TDS was deducted. Those bills were forwarded to the AO and in the remand report, the AO has informed as under: "The AO in his remand report submitted as below: The assessee has claimed that the TDS was deducted in respect of payment to the sub contractor and TDS return was also filed by him. It has been claimed by the Assessee that following payments of TDS was made by him for the year under consideration: Description Total payments made (Rs.) TDS deducted (Rs.) Date of payment of TDS into the government A/c. Payments to s....