2012 (4) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 14,91,489/-. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed from the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee had paid C&F charges of Rs. 17,14,039/- on which TDS was deductible. He observed from the TDS certificates enclosed that TDS was deducted on Rs. 2,02,750/- only and no TDS was deducted on the balance amount of Rs. 15,11,289/-. The Assessing Officer also observed from the ledger account filed by the assessee that the entire sum was payable to M/s G.Masilamani on various dates with narration as 'C&F charges payable to G.Masilamani'. The Assessing Officer observed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Bench in the case of ITO vs Dr.Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd (2005) 3 SOT 71, and also Question No.30 of Board's Circular No.715 dated 8.8.1995. 4. The ld.CIT(A) sent the submissions of the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer, in the remand report dated 21.7.2011 stated that payments made to C&F Agent, M/s G.Masilamani were by account payee cheques. The assessee has not proved that the payments were made to Government or Government Agencies with proper evidence and bills. The bills were paid by the agent and not by the assessee. Hence, contention that the amount paid was towards reimbursement was not correct. 5. In reply to the remand report, the assessee submitted that the reimbursement to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee. Thus, the genuineness of the payment was proved, hence, disallowance made was not correct. However, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not properly explain the import permit and PQFS charges of Rs. 9,800/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. Therefore, he sustained the disallowance of Rs. 19,800/- and deleted the disallowance of balance amount of Rs. 14,91,489/-. 7. The ld. DR relied on the assessment order whereas the ld. A.R of the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). We find that the ld.CIT(A), after examining the breakup of the details and the bills raised by C&F Agent, found that the sum of Rs. 14,91,489/- were reimbursement of expenses to the C&F Agent. The ld.CIT(A) also found that the reimbursement was o....