TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nses to Rs. 10 Lacs. (ii) restricting the disallowance out of Hammali expenses to Rs. 1 lac. (iii) Deleting the addition of Rs. 37,172/- made by disallowing Loading Vehicle expenses. (iv) deleting addition of Rs. 5,64,138/- made u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late payment of employees contribution towards PF." 2. In respect of the first ground of appeal, briefly the facts of the case are that the amount of Rs. 7,61,17,236/- under the head fuel (coal and mustard husk), the assessee was asked to produce the relevant supporting documentation by the AO. The AO observed that the assessee has kept only a register in which receipt of mustard husk is being entered and there are no signatures of the sellers on the revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to unspecified employees of its customer to garner more business and the commission payments was held not verifiable in view of the assessee failing to furnish name and address of the recipients. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submission and AO's findings restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10 lacs and his observations are as under: "In the assessee's own case for the preceding year in appeal No. 84/14-15, I have decided the issue partly in favour of the assessee. Following the same line of decision, I hold that the AO's estimation for the disallowance is not backed by either any logical reasoning or comparable cases. On the other hand, the assessee has submitted details like weighment slips of the husk qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n estimation of 5% disallowance is not back by any logical reasoning or comparable cases. The ld. CIT(A) has also given a findings that the assessee has maintained and submitted the details of the husk puyrchaed during the year in terms of weighment slip details of farmers etc. At the same time given that certain purchases are not being properly supported with the required additional evidences he restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/- being 26% of the total disallowance made by the AO. Similar disallowances have been made in the A.Y. 2011-12 where by following the same reasoning, AO has disallowed 5% of the expenses which were restricted to Rs. 7 lacs by the ld. CIT(A)and the revenue is apparently not in appeal against the said orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the above cited case are not applicable in the case of the assessee since the above case law deals with payment of secret commission considered as illegal payments in that case. In the assessee's own case for the preceding year in appeal No. 84/14-15, I have decided the issue partly in favour of the assessee. It is seen that no independent verification was carried out by the AO to justify his action. He just arrived at some adhoc conclusion and based his disallo3wance on a case law with dissimilar facts involved. If he were to follow this logic, why he accepted 95% of the said expenses and disallowed only 5% is the question that remains unanswered in the Assessment order. Under the circumstances, the AO's estimation is not backed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Revenue, we accordingly do not see any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced as under: As I have pointed out in discussion, related to Ground No.1 above, the AO has resorted to making addition based on the case law of Transport Corporation of India but the facts of the above said case are not applicable in the case of the assessee since the above case law deals with payment of secret commission considered as illegal payments in that case. In the preceding year, in the assessee's own case in appeal No. 84/14-15, I have decided the same in favour of the assessee. Since it is seen that no independent verification was carried out by the AO to justify his action and his estimation is not backed by either any ....