2014 (3) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 25,72,999/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee had not filed any details before the AO but had filed before him. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence u/s 46A without giving opportunity to the AO. (ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of labour charges of Rs. 1,00,000/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee had not filed any details earlier before the AO; but had filed before him. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence u/s 46A without giving opportunity to AO. 2. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee, therefore, there is a violation of Rule 46A on the part of the CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidences. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 Taxmann.com 27) ii) CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary (162 Taxman 257) 5. On the other hand Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has not produced any additional evidence but pointed out the typographical mistake occurred in the details filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) has examined the evidence already before the AO and found that because of that error the assessee has not claimed any excess purchases or inflated purchases but error was only in respect of one party and by taking the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which was clarified by the assessee before the CIT(A), was not an evidence in the form of invoice, ledger account or any other material of the books of accounts but it was only a comparative list showing the details of parties and the amount of purchases. Therefore, pointing out the typographical error in the details which are inconsistence to the actual details recorded in the books of accounts would not amount to furnishing any additional evidence. The CIT(A) has examined the details along with other relevant evidence/record from the books of accounts and found that this typographical mistake in writing the amount of purchases in the details furnished by the assessee before the AO has not affected the total amount of purchases debited to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issue. 8. Ground No. 2 is regarding deletion of labour charges. The AO has noted that the assessee has debited Rs. 7.33 crores towards labour charges. The AO verified the vouchers in respect of the labour charges and noticed that some of the vouchers are self made, hence the AO made adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards labour charges. 9. On appeal, CIT(A) noted the fact that the assessee is engaged in the civil construction work which involves labourers on daily payment basis and the assessee has been maintaining vouchers supporting the payments to the daily wagers. Accordingly the adhoc disallowance made by the AO was deleted by CIT(A). 10. We have heard the Ld. DR as well as Ld. AR and considered the relevant material on ....