TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,46,219/- of assets disclosed in the balance sheet. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 30,30,137/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 33,09,717/- in respect of assets for which bills are claimed to be not furnished. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- for purchase of computer software holding the same as capital in nature. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,60,730/- being expenses claimed in the return of income. 5. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,11,811/- in respect of alleged unexplained creditors. 6. The Ld. CIT-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,23,286/- in respect of unexplained unsecured loan. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income -tax (A)-XIV, Ahmedabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ump sum addition in respect of asset for which bills were not produced. The A.O. has not resorted to invoking any section i.e. 69 of the Act and also has/made any satisfaction before such addition. The addition so made is mechanical in nature on account of part compliance by appellant during asst. proceedings but now when entire details are submitted, the A.O. does not want to verity the same on merit. Such additions are therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The A.O. is directed to delete such addition, which now has no satisfactory basis. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 1,02,46,219/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the learned D.R. submitted the despite various opportunities granted to the Assessee, Assessee did not submit the purchase bills of the assets before A.O. and in those circumstances, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in making the addition. He thus supported the order of Assessing Officer. 8. The learned A.R. on the other hand submitted that the Assessee had furnished additional evidence and made detailed submits before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s viz. Invoice No. VTA/002/05 dt: 25-07-05 of M/s. VOCALL for 15 days Training Programme to staff of appellant for CRM Software specifically designed for BPO/KPO Industries and Invoice No. KSL/007 dt: 27-07-05of M/s. Kasle for Software for CRM Development Speas were submitted with details of payment through cheque of Rs. 2.5 lac to evidence its contentions. Since these software are technical software with specific purpose, the same cannot be held as capital asset as per settled legal proposition. These are related to expenditure on training with Licence to the main software having single use, .The A.O.is, therefore, directed to delete addition so made. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 2,50,000/- 11. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 12. Before us, the learned D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer on the other hand the learned A.R. supported the order of CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the software were technical software with specific purpose and therefore cannot be held to be capital assets. He has fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused the material on record. We find that while deleting the addition CIT(A) has given a finding that all the expenditure were billed and properly vouched. He has further noted that the Assessee has also deducted appropriate TDS wherever applicable and Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect in the claim of expenditure. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. Ground no. 5 is with respect to addition of Rs. 22,11,811/- with respect to unexplained creditors. 18. On perusing the Balance Sheet of the Assessee, Assessing Officer noticed that there was sundry creditors of Rs. 22,11,811/- in its balance sheet. Since the Assessee did not furnish any details with respect to the creditors, he considered 25% of the credits as unexplained credits in the books of Assessee and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 5,52,952/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding as under:- 6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appel....