TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 4,34,956/- on account of bad debts by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 4,34,956/- on account of bad debts by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,00,000/- fully as made by Ld. AO under the head depreciation and maintenance of car and further erred in sustaining the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 2,80,738/- and that too wither any basis, material and evidences available on record. 6. That in any case a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 64,02,705/- on account of alleged undisclosed closing stock and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions/evidences of the assessee. 14. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 64,02,705/- on account of alleged undisclosed closing stock which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions/disallowance and passing the impugned assessment order being contrary to law and facts and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the principles of natural justice and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 16. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of same. 4.2. On the contrary Ld. DR submitted that criteria for allowability of expenditure under section 40 A (3) is not to explain genuineness of transaction. Ld.DR submitted that the moment assessee makes cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- a day to a person, disallowance deserves to be made under the said section. On perusal of order passed by Ld. CIT (A) assessee took a plea that payment has been made to assessee's agent, and therefore, it falls within exception of Rule 6 DD (k). He submitted that Ld. CIT (A) dismissed this argument by recording that persons to whom cash payment has been made are not agents of assessee. 5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5.1. From list of payments made in cash by assessee, it is observed that none of the payments have been made to any particular person exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a day. Payment has been made by assessee on various dates to various people, except payment made to Lalji Chauha, in the month of March for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 38,714/-, that too, made on different dates. 5.2. On perusal of various bills and vouchers placed at page 5-53 of pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On the contrary Ld. DR placed reliance upon observations of Ld. CIT (A). 7. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 7.1. It is observed that most of these payments pertain to preceding financial years and assessee issued various reminders to these debtors. However from the list placed at page 63 and upon verification of pages 64-88 it is observed that evidences has been filed by assessee in respect of Mirra And Mirra Industries, Sandeep Industries and Bindal Industries establish the debt due to assessee. In respect of other debtors being Sandvik Asia Industries Ltd, IPM Industries, no details has been furnished in paper book filed before us. 7.2. Further, we are unable to understand how amount lying credited in 'imprest account' would be bad debt, as assessee has not explained any details in respect of the same. 7.3. After amendment to section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, though assessee is only to write off the debts as irrecoverable in its account in order to claim deduction of bad debts, however, evidences of claim to be existing like invoices must be filed. Thus in view of evidences filed by assessee, we allow debts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon the view taken by Ld. CIT (A). 9.3. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 9.4. It is observed that details filed by assessee before authorities below has not been doubted and no further verification has been carried out by authorities below in order to establish any falsity of submissions made by assessee. The details placed in paper book reveals that Sh. Tyagi, director of assessee had admittedly travelled to U.S. during Interwire Trade Exposition. Further since assessee is engaged in manufacturing, supply, commissioning of wire drawing plant and machinery of various metals and their alloys, it cannot be negated that such exhibitions would not be of any use to assessee. 9.5. As authorities below has on mere surmises made addition, without there being any cogent evidence to establish anything contrary to what has been submitted by assessee, we are inclined to allow the claim of assessee. 9.6. Accordingly these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 10. Ground No. 9-10 has been raised by assessee against disallowance of sum of Rs. 10, 95, 800/-by invoking provisions of section 41 (1) of the Act. 10.1. Ld.Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the explanation offered by assessee which is substantiated by account statements placed in paper book unless authorities below produce any evidence to establish that the purchase was bogus. We are therefore not in concurrence with the views of Ld.CIT (A) which is based upon mere surmises and conjunctures. 11.4. Accordingly these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed 12. Ground No. 11-12 has been raised by assessee against disallowance of Rs. 28,50 000/- under section 40 A (2) (b) of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that these payments relate to job work charges paid to related party being M/s Associated Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that related party has been working for assessee in previous years and subsequent years also and assessee has got work done according to its specifications as it did not have necessary expertise as well as machines for the same. Ld.Counsel submitted that the authorities below confirmed addition on the basis that job work charges paid was excessive and that assessee has not filed any evidences regarding work carried out by related party. He submitted that assessee has filed entire details which is placed at page ....