TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid order of CIT(A) Revenue is now in appeal before us and the Assessee has also filed a C.O. Before us Assessee has submitted that there is delay in filing of C.O by 6 days and has also filed the affidavit of the Assessee explaining the reason for delay. Considering the averments made in the affidavit we condone the delay in filing the C.O. The grounds raised the Revenue reads as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition made on estimation of profit of Rs. 90,036/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made U/s 68 r.w.s. 41(1) of Rs. 47,00,145/-. 1st ground is with respect to deletion of addition made on account of estimation of profit. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusing the audit report filed by the Assessee, A.O noticed that since the Assessee had not filed the details of expenses incurred the expenses in the entirety cannot be allowed. He therefore considered the gross profit shown by the Assessee of Rs. 7,71,725/- as the net profit of the Assessee and thereby disallowed the entire indirect expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions and perused the material on record. We find that A.O had considered the gross profit shown by the Assessee as the net profit and thereby disallowed the entire indirect expenses. We further find that CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee considered 8% of the receipts shown by the Assessee to be the gross profit which in our view seems to be reasonable. Before us no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 2nd ground is with respect to deletion on addition made u/s 68 r.w.s. 41(1) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, and on verification of the balance sheet, A.O noticed that Assessee had shown sundry creditors of Rs. 47,00,145/-. The Assessee was asked to produce details and confirmations of the creditors which Assessee did not furnish. A.O thereafter on verification of the return of income of the 3 creditors of the Assessee noticed that the name of the Assessee was not appearing as debtor in their balance sheets. (The cases where the A.O verified the returns of income of credito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and as per the books of the creditors witnesses as on 31.03.2009 are as under. Sr. No. Name of the Creditors As per books of the creditor As per the Assessee 1 Sureshkumar S. Jain Rs. 2,19,505/- Rs. 2.19,505/- 2 Sunilkumar Veruni Izava Rs. 1,04,290/- Rs. 1,04,290/- 3 Yogeshbhai C. Shah Rs. 24,518/- 24,518/- 4 Kunvar Bahadur Singh Rs. 1,72,774/- 1,72,774/- 5 Sakur Rauf Khan Rs. 1,36,812/- S. 1,36,812/- During the course of the examination, the identity of persons produced was duly verified. Each of the five persons were found to be material suppliers to the assessee. The material supplied was marble, sand, fabrication items, etc used in the construction activity. It is further submitted that in view of limitation of time, the examination has been made on test check basis in respect of persons falling under the two categories viz. (1) Creditors who had filed affidavits along with copy of accounts/balance confirmation, and (2) Creditors who had filed only balance confirmation." 11.2 From the above observations of the AO it is seen that the creditors shown by the appellant as outstanding are genuine. The creditors are for expenses for which the appellant has to make pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that there is no finding of CIT(A) with respect to the non reflection of the Assessee as debtor by the 3 creditors. Before us ld. A.R. has also submitted that the creditors have been paid subsequently and the accounts with those creditors are running account. On a specific query of the bench, ld. A.R. could not place on record ,the copy of the account of those creditors to support its contention that the account of the creditors are running accounts and that they have been paid in subsequent years. Considering the totality of the facts, we are of the view that in all fairness the entire issue needs to be re-examined de novo at the end of A.O. We therefore remit the issue back to the file of A.O to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after considering the submissions of the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to cooperate by furnishing all the necessary details called for by the A.O. Needless to state the A.O shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. In the result, this ground of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The ground raised by the C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the A.O by holding as under:- 9. Ground No.3, deals with addition of Rs. 13,01,617/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is seen that the liability of TDS has not been discharged within the time limit prescribed by the Act. In view of the same the addition made by the A.O is confirmed. 16. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 17. Before us ld. A.R. submitted that Assessee is an individual and in the preceding financial year the turnover of the Assessee did not exceed Rs. 40 lacs and therefore the Assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 194C. He further submitted that the aforesaid submissions made before CIT(A) has not considered and there is no finding by the CIT(A) of the submissions made by Assessee. He therefore submitted that the matter may be remitted to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. D.R. on the other submitted that the Assessee did not submit the required details before A.O and therefore A.O had disallowed the expenses. He therefore submitted that the matter may be remitted to the file of A.O. 18. ....