AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,080/- made by the AO on account of non deduction of TDS on rental payments, ignoring the facts that no rent agreement to justify that the rent of Rs. 1,02,080/- out of total rent paid amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid by him to other persons. iv. The Ld, CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences w.r.t. addition of Rs. 1,25,547/- made by the AO on account of non declaration of receipts in 1TR, when the same were not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings even after affording the ample opportunities and accordingly deleting the additions made by the AO. v. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of capital introduced of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the basis of additional evidences produced during the appellant stage when the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness o the gift during the assessment proceedings. vi. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 6,65,890/- out of additions of Rs.l 1,06,367/- made by the AO on account of unexplained addition to Building Account, c the basis of additional evidences produced duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the same vide para no. 3.2 to 3.4 at pages 4 to 5 in his impugned order. The said relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- "3.2 I have considered the facts of the case together with the submissions of the appellant and the remand report of the AO on the issue admissibility of additional evidence. As per the report of the AO dated 30.3.2012, the appellant was provided adequate opportunity to submit the evidence, but he failed to do so. On this basis, the AO has stated the additional evidence may not be admitted at this stage. The appellant, on the other hand, stated that most of the documents were given to the AO on 25.11.2010, 13.12.2010 and 27.12.2010 respectively. These documents were given to him directly as a result of which the appellant coulcknot get acknowledgement regarding the same. The appellant in his strong words stated that the file was misplaced by the AO for which blame was put on the assessee. 3.3. In order to resolve the issue of admissibility of additional evidence, I perused the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additional evidences and thereafter passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interfere on our part. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground no (i) raised in the Revenue's Appeal. 9. Apropos issue relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,84,784/- out of addition of Rs. 3,56,002/- made by the AO on account of non-deduction of TDS on freight payment raised vide ground no. (ii) is concerned, we find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the same vide para no. 6.3 to 6.4 at pages 6 to 7 in his impugned order. The said relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- "6.3 Para 3 is on account of addition of Rs. 5,96,002/- on account of two factors. The first factor is non-deduction of TDS on freight of Rs. 3,56,002/- and the second factor is on account of non-deduction of TDS on rental payment amounting, in all, Rs. 2,4O,000/-. The AO, in his report dated 30.03.2012 stated the following with regard to these additions: "The contention of the assessee has been considered carefully. In this reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar and Shri Mahesh Kumar. In case of Shri Om Prakash, the agreement signed in 2005 showed a rental payment of Rs. 9500/- per month. It also provided for a 10% annual increase. If 10% annual increase is added to the rental payment of Rs. 9,500/- per month, the total amount exceeds Rs. 1,20,OOO/- p.a for the year under consideration. Hence the AO was right in invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) in respect of rental payment to Shri Om Prakash. As regards the other two rental payments, I agree with the appellant that the total payment was less than Rs. 1,20,OOO/- p.a. and thus TDS provisions were not to be invoked. Hence the addition on account of non-deduction of TDS in respect of rental payment is restricted to the payments made to Shri Om Prakash. Hence, the addition made by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order is partly allowed." 10.1 After going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, we are of the view that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed a well reasoned order on this issue which does not need any interfere on our part. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground no (iii) raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order. The said relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- "6.9 The addition in Para 6 is in respect of Rs. 10 lacs received by the appellant from his father, Shri Ram Kishan Saini. This addition was made in view of the fact that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of transaction and credit-worthiness of his father. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant gave additional evidence which was examined by the AO. The AO in his report dated 30.03.2012 submitted the following with regard to this addition: "The contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to certify that the amount was received as gift from his father. Neither Sh. Ram Kishan Saini has complied with the summon u/s 131 dated 12.03.2012, to enable this office to examine creditworthiness and genuineness of the gift, nor any gift deed in this regard has been furnished. Therefore the addition of Rs. 10 Lacs has rightly been made by the AO." 6.10. The additional documents given by the appellant- were examined by the under-signed as well. The documents included an affidavit from the father of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deletion of addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,65,890/- out of additions of Rs. 11,06,367/- on account of unexplained addition to building account, on the basis of additional evidences raised vide ground no. (vi) is concerned, we find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the same vide para no. 6.12 to 6.13 at page 10 in his impugned order. The said relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- "6.12 The AO made an addition of Rs. 11,06,367/- in Para 7 of his order on account of addition made to buildings. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant gave details of the said additions along with relevant bills/vouchers. The AO on examination of the said details stated the following in his report dated 30.03.2012: "The assessee has not filed any proof of sale of these assets neither at the time of assessment proceedings nor at the time of appellate proceedings. In absence of any such proof and explanation/ the AO has rightly made additions to the retuned income of the assessee on account of additions to Plant and Machinery and Build....