TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 in the instant case disallowance for Rs. 2,43,879/- on account of ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 remand report, the Assessing Officer merely stated that the additional evidences fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 so called information received from his counter-part had nothing to do with the fate of the ....