2011 (4) TMI 1430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. b) Whether the learned CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,21,486/- relating to the excess claim of expenditure. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is an individual and is carrying on business as Transport Contractor under the name "M/s Veerabhadra Transports". During the year under consideration, the assessee executed transport contract for M/s Indian Oil Corporation through his own lorries as well as hired lorries. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer compared the statement of expenditure furnished for each lorry with the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and noticed that there was excess claim of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....J. Rama vs. C.I.T. & ANR (2010) 194 TAXMAN 37 (Kar.) With regard to the relief of ₹ 6,21,486/- granted by the learned CIT (A) in respect of excess claim of expenditure, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the first appellate authority has considered fresh evidences submitted for the first time before him without confronting the same with the Assessing Officer. Accordingly he pleaded that the said issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the contrary the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the issue of deduction of tax at source has been covered in favour of the assessee by the decision rendered by this Bench in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation reported in (2010) 1 ITR....