TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Member: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Salem, dated 28-02-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The assessee is a works contractor. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY. 2009-10 on 30-09-2009 declaring his income as Rs. 5,88,460/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....527/- and from Kirloskar Brother Ltd., receipts were Rs. 15,16,437/-. Whereas, the assessee had disclosed receipt of Rs. 70,03,715/- from V. Subramaniyam & Co and Rs. 12,93,392/- from Kirloskar Brother Ltd. Thus, there were difference of Rs. 34,22,812/- and Rs. 2,23,045/- respectively from the aforesaid parties. The assessee filed letter before the Assessing Officer on 28-10-2011, admitting that c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest received is Rs. 2,28,638.42 and not Rs. 2,45,091/- as stated by the Assessing Officer. There is an arithmetical mistake in the total of the amount in the case of bank interest. In respect of contract receipts, the ld.Counsel contended that the CIT(Appeals) has mechanically followed the order of the Assessing Officer instead of applying his own mind and deciding the issue on merits. The ld.Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the alleged excess deducting of tax at source. The ld.Counsel has made an alternate prayer to remit the file back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts. We do not deem it appropriate to grant second innings to the assessee for mere verification of the TDS amounts from the bank or the contractees. The assessee could have done this exercise with due diligence in the first sta....