TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 by the ld. Income Tax Officer - 1(2), Thane (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs. 11,90,941/- towards un-reconciled AIR entries in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO had observed that AIR information was received from ITD database and the assessee was given the same to reconcile it with its books of accounts. The assessee submitted that total revenue from 141 parties as per AIR report was Rs. 8,33,91,572/- whereas the amount which could be reconciled was Rs. 8,12,91,668/- only thereby lead....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer could not provide any information and moreover he made addition stating that the assessee agreed for the same. Assessing Officer made addition solely on the basis of AIR information and we see no other information is brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show that the assessee had in fact received this income from the said parties. We also see that the assessee reconciled 95% of the transactions leaving only 4.76% of the transactions unreconciled due to lack of data. 8. We find that almost an identical situation aroused in the case of M/s. Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the Coordinate Bench held as under: - "7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se also, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that apart from the AIR information, there is no other material / evidence available before the Assessing Officer to establish that assessee has received more income than what is shown in the Profit & Loss account. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld. Ground no.1, is dismissed." 9. In view of what is discussed above, we do not find any valid reason for the Assessing Officer to make addition towards unreconciled income as the addition was solely based on AIR information and without making proper enquiries, without submitting the information as requested by the assessee. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Difference 6,75,819 3.2. The ld AO in the remand report observed that perusal of the above items indicate that CCTV, DPU1001A- Wifi, Minitower Dell, Network Switch, Others, Printers, Racks and Router are in no way related to the computer or its peripherals as they do not in any way enhance the working of the computer or the computer is not dependent for its functioning. These are add-ons and are not integral part of the computer system to qualify it to avail depreciation @ 60%. Accordingly, he prayed for sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,819/- before the ld CITA. The ld CITA accordingly sustained the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,819/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.3. We have heard the rival ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....magination, the amounts could be termed as irrecoverable and accordingly the claim of bad debts by the assessee is not in order. In other words, the ld AO in the remand report observed that the assessee had not proved that the debts had become irrecoverable to the tune of Rs. 13,91,338/- and hence claim of bad debts written off by the assessee is not to be allowed. The ld CITA accordingly upheld the disallowance of claim of bad debts written off in the sum of Rs. 13,91,338/- Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.2. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee had claimed bad debts in respect of 54 customers to the tune of Rs. 13,91,338/- , against which, the income was duly offered by the assessee in earlier....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings and filed revised computation. The ld AO also observed that the assessee in support of this claim had also submitted the Chartered Accountant's certificate in Form 10CCB during the course of assessment. We find that the ld CITA had placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) for denying the claim of deduction u/s 35AD of the Act to the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear in its order that the claim made by the assessee otherwise than by way of a valid return is not applicable to the appellate authorities. Hence we hold that the ld CITA ought to have considered the claim of deduction u/s 35AD of the Act in the instant....