TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that against the bill of Rs. 1,39,499/- raised by Innamul Huk, the assessee paid Rs. 1,05,221/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,11,785/-, i.e., bills of M/s. Gurukrupa Bricks and Rajshree Construction and differential amount in respect of bills of Innamul Huk. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed the copies of bills raised by M/s. Gurukrupa Bricks and Rajshree Construction. Further, regarding the difference between the bill amount and the amount paid to Innamul Huk, the assessee submitted that actual amount paid was debited in the books which was less than the bill amount; hence, no adverse inference was to be drawn. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer in the remand report called only stated that the additional evidences were filed before the CIT(A) which should not be admitted and confirmed the addition. The Assessing Officer has not stated anything adverse on the merits of the addition vis-à-vis the additional documents submitted. 5. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 6. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,91,880/-) and M/s. Pooja Packaging (Rs.32,499/-). All these bills were debited in the Material Suppliers Expenses account and was claimed as deduction by the assessee. For non-furnishing of the bills, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,43,879/- to the income of the assessee. 10. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted three bills raised by of M/s. Shree Sahajanand Traders, M/s. Shree Ambica Cement Products and M/s. Pooja Packaging. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted that the additional evidences now filed before him should not be admitted and addition should be confirmed. The Assessing Officer did not made any comment on the merit of addition on the basis of the additional documents submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). 11. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 12. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A, whereas the AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 13. We find that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no adverse inference should be drawn. Copies of the bills raised by M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service were also filed before the CIT(A). 17. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer submitted in the remand report that the additional evidences which were filed now before him should not be admitted and the addition made should be confirmed. The Assessing Officer did not mention anything on the merit of the addition on the basis of the additional documents submitted before him. 18. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the expenditure claimed was genuine. 19. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A, whereas the AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 20. We find that the disallowance of Rs. 68,400/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of the difference between the bill amount (Rs.1,64,450/-) and charges paid (Rs.96,050/-) to M/s. Sanjay Tempo Service towards the expenses incurred for transportation. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es incurred in relation to the employee labourers and since the payments made in relation to individual labourers was below the threshold limit, the same were not subjected to deduction of tax at source u/s 192 of the Act. It was also submitted that no lump-sum disallowance could have been made on the plea of non deduction of tax at source and any failure in deducting tax at source can only lead to disallowance u/s 40a(ia) and that too, if and only if there was a clear failure of TDS provisions and such failure is covered u/s 40a(ia). 24. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer who in the remand report requested the CIT(A) to enhance the disallowance from 8% as done by him in the assessment order to 20 to 25% in view of the same having been supported only by self-made vouchers. The Assessing Officer also mentioned about certain information received by him from his counter-part pointing out to certain bogus and fraudulent agreements which could lead to reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee, in the rejoinder to the remand report, reiterated the submissions and further pointed out that the allegations leveled by the Assessing Officer based on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. It was also submitted that no lump-sum disallowance could not have been made by the Assessing Officer for non-deduction of tax at source as because the disallowance could not have been made only with respect to the amount on which TDS was not deducted and it was covered u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer who requested the CIT(A) to enhance the disallowance from 8% to 20 to 25% on the ground that the payments were made by self-made vouchers only and also that information has been received from his counter-part that certain bogus and fraudulent agreements have been made by the assessee which will lead to re-opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act. 28. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that where the TDS provisions were not applicable no disallowance could be made by the Assessing Officer for any part of the corresponding expenditure. Further, the CIT(A) has given a finding that he has verified the books of account and the self-made vouchers as mentioned by the Assessing Officer and found that they were duly stamped and signed by the labourers. The CIT(A) also held that the information which was not revealed in....