AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Let's first take assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No.2723/Mds/2016. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee before this Tribunal is that the addition of Rs. 5,05,000/- being the gift said to be received from her mother. 4. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee received gift from her mother to the extent of Rs. 5,05,000/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer wherein the assessee's mother confirmed the fact of giving gift to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispute. The genuineness of transaction was also established by filing an affidavit from the donor, namely, the assessee's mother. At the best, the Assessing Officer can doubt the creditworthiness of creditor. The assessee's mother claims that gift was given from her past savings. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the gift because she has no independent source of income and she was not assessed to tax. 7. The assessee's mother appears to be housewife. She has to take care of household expenses. Whenever received money from husband or son for household expenses, Indian ladies use to save part of the money and whenever the husband or son urgently needs some money, the ladies use to give the same out of their savings. This saving habit of hou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Numbers of the contractors were also not available on record. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the genuineness of liability and its payment is not proved. Hence, the sum of Rs. 3,26,15,735/- was disallowed. According to the Ld. D.R., on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 44,30,887/- on the ground that the payment made by the assessee is not liable for deduction of tax, therefore, there cannot be disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The payment made to the transport contractors towards freight charges was quantified as Rs. 44,30,887/-. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 44,30,887/-. According ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee contends that the payment was a composite one for purchase of iron ore and transportation, therefore, not liable for deduction of tax. The assessee also claims that in view of Section 194C(6) of the Act, in the case of those transporters who have Permanent Account Number, tax need not be deducted. In respect of others, who have no Permanent Account Number, the payment was made to the extent of Rs. 44,30,887/-, which was disallowed by the CIT(Appeals). The fact remains that the Permanent Account Number was furnished by the assessee except in respect of payment made to the extent of Rs. 44,30,887/-. Moreover, it is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alternate working filed by the assessee, allowed the claim without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 clearly says that whenever additional evidence is filed by the assessee, an opportunity shall be given to the Assessing Officer to contradict the same. Since such an opportunity was not given, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to reconsider the entire issue. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue of closing stock is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee before him, in accordance with law,....