2018 (12) TMI 1489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in upholding the addition of Rs. 66,04,644/- and thereby failed to appreciate that difference of Rs. 66,04,644/ - in the 26AS statement and income as shown in P&L statement and corresponding expense of Rs. 61,39,568/- was duly accounted for by the appellant in the next financial year. 2. That the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that addition has resulted in double taxation of same income during AY 2011-12 as well as during AY 2012-13. 3. Without prejudice, the addition during the year, on account of difference in 26AS statement and income as shown in P&L A/c cannot e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eing disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, 1963. 4. Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee relates to difference of Rs. 66,04,644/ - in the 26AS statement and income as shown in Profit and Loss account. 5. Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that there are many reasons which contribute to the difference between form No.26AS statement and income as shown in Profit and Loss account. For example, when the assesse receives an advance from the party, the said advance is shown in the liability side of the Balance Sheet as a liability, till the work is executed ( or service provided). When the work is executed or services are provided....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4,101/- on account of commission paid. After hearing the ld DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record, we note that Assessee had claimed commission payment as a business expenditure to the tune of Rs. 26,94,101/-. The Commission was paid to M/s Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the ld AO had made some enquiry but there was no evidence that any services were received against payment so made by assessee. Consequently, the said amount was disallowed. In appeal proceedings also assessee had not explained the nature of services rendered by M/s Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. As no justification for commission payment has been furnished, therefore addition to the tune of Rs. 26,94,101/- was co....