AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 11,62,000/- as freight charges in his P&L Account and out of that a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- was paid to M/s. Baba Transport, Rs. 1 lac paid to M/s. Maa Jagadamba Transport and Rs. 1 lac to Shiv Shakti Roadlines without deduction of tax at source. Accordingly, he proceeded to disallow the same u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for violation of section 194C of the Act. This addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds: "3. For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not legally justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- on A/c of payments made to M/s. Baba Transport, u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the same may please be deleted. 4. For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not legally justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on A/c of payments made to M/s. Ma Jagdamba Transport, u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the same may please be deleted. 5. For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not legally justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on A/c of payments made to M/s. Shiv Shakti Road Line....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in page 1 of the paper book and from the said certificate it is seen that M/s. Baba Transport had duly accounted for in their books and in the income tax return the receipt of monies from the assessee to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/-. It is also seen that the said certificate admittedly contains PAN and income tax particulars of M/s. Baba Transport. We find that even though the said certificate is not signed by the Chartered Accountant of M/s. Baba Transport, but still in the interest of justice and fair-play, we deem it fit and appropriate to set aside this issue to the file of the AO to examine the veracity of the contents of the said certificate given by M/s. Baba Transport, and if found to be correct, the assessee would be entitled for taking the benefit of second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act read with section 201(1) of the Act which has been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision cited supra and accordingly, the issue should not be invited with disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. With regard to other two payments in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to M/s. Maa Jagadamba Transport and M/s. Shiv Shakti Transport, we find that the assessee was not abl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(A) . Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground: "6. For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not legally justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,90,000/- on A/c of payments made to labourers for screening work and the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to such payments and the addition on this count may please be deleted." 8. The Ld. AR filed the complete wage sheet comprising of payments made towards screening to various labourers through labour sardar together with their attestation in the form of signature/thumb impression clearly stating the number of days worked and the rate per day as an additional evidence and prayed for admission of the same by this Tribunal as admittedly these papers could not be gathered from the concerned sites and produced before the lower authorities. He stated that these facts in the form of muster roll of wage register for payment of wages through labour sardar goes into the root of the matter and clearly supports the case of the assessee and fairly stated that the same be duly examined by the AO and accordingly prayed for setting aside of this issue. 9. In response....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot available before the lower authorities for their examination, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to set aside this issue to the file of the AO to examine the wage sheet and the contention of the assessee that the payments were made to labour sardar and labour association and if the same are found to be true, the assessee should not be invited with disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the same does not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR stated that ground nos. 7 and 8 raised by the assessee are not pressed for which necessary endorsement has been made in the file. Accordingly, ground nos. 7 and 8 raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 13. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition in the sum of Rs. 8,34,070/- made on account of difference in the value of sundry creditors in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The brief facts of this issue is that the AO during the course of ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no dispute on the total purchase made from the said party. There were three payments made by the assessee during the year to the tune of Rs. 16,45,497/- which is also duly reflected in the statement of account of the said party. Apart from this, the said party had credited two sums one i.e. on 26.05.2008 Rs. 3 lacs vide cheque no. 609001 and on 31.03.2009 the sum of Rs. 34,070/- vide cheque no. 256194. The Ld. AR argued that these two payments (i.e. Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 34,070/-) were not paid by the assessee to the said party. Accordingly, there is a genuine difference between the assessee's books and the balance shown by the said creditor. He argued that the entire bank statements were produced before the AO and nothing prevented the AO from verifying the said bank statement to ensure whether at all any payments were made by the assessee in the sums of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 34,070/- to the said party. However, he fairly stated let this issue be re-examined by the AO by allowing the opportunity of cross examination of the said party to the assessee as admittedly the statement was obtained by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act behind the back of the assessee. In any case, he argued....