TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and law of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak has grossly ignored erred in not considering the additions explanations and disallowance of payments made under the head of Inland haulage to the intermediatery alongwith relevant documentary evidence. 4. That not considering the quoted citations nor any contradictions made by the Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak are quite arbitrary, excessive and unjustified. Further to say that additions are held in appeal before CIT(A) Rohtak does not amount to wilfully concealed the particulars nor furnishing inaccurate particulars subject to penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 3. The grounds raised in (A.Y. 2009-10) read as under:- 1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak vide dated 29.1.2015 is bad in law. Further the said order is contrary to the facts and submissions on record. 2. That the confirming the penalty of Rs. 1618000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) is quite arbitrary, excessive and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak has grossly ignored the facts and submission regarding difference in party account, cash disallowance u/s. 40A(3) and freight expenses paid to mediator. 4. That not co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im also. 10. Ground 1 and 2 relate to additions of Rs. 12,67,193/- and Rs. 3,86,041/- on account of unexplained cash payments reflected in cash book of M/s. Mosaic House and M/s Diler Stone, proprietorship concerns of the appellant. From the perusal of the cash book of M/s. Mosaic House, the Assessing Officer noted that there is no opening cash in hand and payments in cash upto 30.3.2007 were of Rs. 17,97,141/-; whereas the cash receipts amounted to only Rs. 5,29,948/- and as such, there was a difference of Rs. 12,67,193/- which was added as income. Further, the cash book of M/s Diler Stone for the period l.4.2006 to 3l.3.2007 revealed that assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 4,62,000/- but cash in hand on the said date was Rs. 75,959/- and therefore, the addition was made on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 3,86,041/-. The appellant explained that difference of Rs. 12,67,193/- was met out of the advance of Rs. 11,50,000/- received against land and transfer of Rs. 1,95,320/- from M/s Diler Stone. The appellant in support of the above furnished agreement to self dated 26.3.2006, cash flow statement and revised cash book. In a reply dated 15.12.2009 furnished by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not record any statement as name of the person in the agreement was Rajesh Chauhan and not Rajesh Kumar. The CIT(A) thus rejected the explanation of the appellant on the ground that there is a denial of the sole purchaser produced before the Assessing Officer of entering into any such agreement and appellant failed to produce remaining parties. 10.3. As regards ground nos. 1 and 2, having gone through the record, we find that the balance sheet of M/s. Mosaic House furnished along with return of income shows the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the property. Moreover it is not in dispute that assessee is an owner of the property although a personal property. It is also a matter of record that appellant has furnished affidavits of all the eight parties in support of the claim of advance against land. No doubt, appellant has failed to produce the parties before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings yet it is a matter of record that one of the persons who was produced admitted to have advanced Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant. The affidavits and the statement as recorded have not been placed before us. We therefore accept the contention of the counsel of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 12. Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 18,72,599/- representing expenditure incurred on export of goods through agents of freight shipping companies. The Assessing Officer has held that no evidence was filed to prove that payments were made to agents of shipping companies and therefore, since appellant did not deduct TDS under section 194C of the Act, the same is not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant highlighted page 45 which is a certificate from M/s. Pooja Freight Forwarders stating that M/s. Pooja Freight Forwarders is an International freight forwarding company which negotiates ocean freight with the carriers/shipping lines on behalf of the exporter for their out bound shipment. It has been confirmed that shipments from the appellant have been booked through Mediterranean shipping company SA and M/s. Pooja Freight Forwarders has paid freight to the shipping line on behalf of the appellant. It has been clarified that Mediterranean Shipping Company is a Geneva, Italy based shipping line and they have a tax exemption certificate from the Income Tax Department. The CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 723, copy of which is placed on record and contents of the same have been tabulated in the order of learned CIT(A) also and found that about certain payments it has been clarified by the Board that on these payments provisions of ss. 194C and 195 will not apply and provisions of s. 172 will be applicable. The learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration this circular and found that certain payments made by the assessee to the C and F agents who have already made the payment on behalf of the assessee were not covered either under s. 194C or under s. 195, as they are covered under the provisions of s. 172. Therefore, we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in holding that on certain payments the provisions of ss. 194C and 195 were not applicable and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS. Such payments have been discussed by learned CIT(A) in his order. They were on account of sea freight transport which were at Rs. 1,16,11,550, CCI charges, steamer freight charges, REPO container charges. Remaining expenses reimbursed by the assessee were on account of transportation charges at Rs. 20,31,226 and on this amount the agent has deducted TDS before making payment to the pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le. In this case also we find that facts are totally different from the facts involved in the case in hand. Moreover, the payments made by assessee are covered by s. 172 where provisions of ss. 194C and 195 are not applicable as clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 723, dt. 19th Sept., 1995. The AO has placed reliance on the Circular No. 715 which is of earlier date from the Circular No. 723. The learned CIT(A) has observed that this circular was wrongly applied by AO as Circular No. 723 is applicable on the facts of the present case. Nature of payments has already been discussed by learned CIT(A) at p. 11 of his order. Therefore, we are not repeating those details again and in these details it has been clarified that the entire payments are covered by Circular No. 723, dt. 19th Sept., 1995 and on remaining payment, the agent has deducted TDS or the assessee has deducted the TDS. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances and in view of detailed reasoning given by learned CIT(A) which has been reproduced in this order, we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the amount reimbursed by the assessee. Accordingly, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vouchers produced by the assessee. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the disallowance made by the AO was treated as fair and reasonable and thus the addition of Rs. 1,54,665/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground no. 5 raised by the assesee in its appeal. In the result, the Assessee's being ITA No. 467/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) stands party allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 2222/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 14. With regard to ground nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the assessee's own case the issue is the same as dealt with by us in the order for the AY 2007-08 at paragraphs 12 to 12.5. Consistent with the view taken therein, we delete the said deletion. Grounds allowed. 15. With regard to ground no. 1, the Ld.CIT(A) observes that there is a difference of accounts. The sales in this case is Rs. 1.08 crores and the ledger account reflects Rs. 1.21 crores. At page 18 of the paper book the assessee furnished a copy of the reconciliation. The opening balance is Rs. 13,21,034/-. All these ar....