TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds of appeal are that the assessee firm is sub-contractors of PCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has claimed labour charges of Rs.1,80,86,729/-.The Assessing Officer has stated that no details are filed regarding tax deduction on expenses claimed nor any reconciliation is filed about the payments that they are made to various parties and all the payments are under threshold limit prescribed in the law. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the above claim u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. On behalf of the assessee it was contended that TDS was deducted and deposited with the HDFC bank on 22/05/2009 on the amount of labour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y rectifying the mistake and requested to admit revised return as additional evidence under Rule 46A. Ld. CIT(A) has stated that submission of the assessee was once again forwarded to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and the Assessing Officer again submitted his remand report dated 28/12/2012 wherein following important observations have been made by the AO. "Form No. 27A was filed by the assessee on 27.03.2012and the revised TDS return was filed on 06.09.2012. Tax deducted in both the original and revised TDS return was Rs.3,09,781/-. Out of labour charges of Rs.1,80,86,729/-, in the fresh submission it was stated that Rs.1,74,69,000/- were paid to Kailasnath Dhuria which were shown at Rs.87,34,466/- in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cash which is in violation of provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. Payment being more than Rs.20,000/- which has not been made through account payee cheque. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the said sum of Rs.1,74,69,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Hence this appeal by the assessee. 7. During the course of hearing ld. AR referred page no. 26 of the paper-book which contains detail of payments made by the assessee to Mr. Kailashnath Dhuria. He submitted that an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid on account of Bank Transfer, a sum of Rs.61,35,481/- were made by account payee cheques and sum of Rs.97,00,942/- were paid by bearer cheques. Thus, aggregate sum of Rs.1,76,36,423/- were paid to Mr. Kailasnath Dhuria. Ld. AR contended th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and rest of the payments were made by account payee cheques and/or by bank transfer. Further ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submission of the assessee made before him as to whether any payment made by bearer cheques fall in any of the exception as provided under Rule 6DD of Income-Tax Rules. Hence in the interest of the justice we consider it prudent to set aside the order of the authorities below on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh, after considering such evidence as may be filed before him and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as per law. Hence, Grounds no.1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the issue to the file o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal by the assessee. 13. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that she was not doing any activity at sight but she was working in the office of the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer has taken above statement that Ms. Sonal Bhatt was not working/doing any activity in the firm which is not correctly stated. The ld. AR has submitted that Ms. Sonal Bhatt is an active partner of the assessee firm and referred the deed of partnership placed at pages 80-90 of the paper book. During the course of hearing a query was raised by the Bench as to whether any payment was made to Ms. Soanl Bhatt in earlier years or in subsequent years to the assessment year under consideration, but ld. AR submitted that he i....