TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made under the head material purchase amounting Rs. 6,89,541/- without any reason and verification of facts. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & in fact has given relief of Rs. 71,128/- out of addition of Rs. 6,10,411/- on the basis that the same is not proper. (5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of Architect & MAP approval on the ground that the AO has not brought any cogent material to show that the expenses are either not accidental to business or bogus expenses and disallowance made on adhoc basis by the AO is not proper. (6) Any other ground that may arise at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder/developer and filed return of income on 29.11.2014 for the A.Y. 2014-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 7,54,980/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) & 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In compliance to the notice, the AR of the assessee appeared and case was discussed. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment assessing total income of Rs. 2,56,65,240/- and made various a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctors as Directors have not shown income under the head salary whereas the assessee has submitted that the Directors have shown remuneration as income from other sources. The Directors in his return of income have claimed certain expenses out of remuneration which was a factor to conclude the AO as such. So far section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the same is not applicable. Hence the assessee's explanation on the line of section 40(a)(ia) is not proper. The AO did not find as to whether the made of Rs. 15,76,180/- on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is hereby deleted." The CIT(A) in respect of second ground of addition of Rs. 2,15,01,768/- made on account of payment made to labour without deducting TDS, has deleted the addition and observed as under :- 5. Ground no. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 2,15,01,768/-. 5.1 I have gone through the order of the learned AO, remand report as well as the written submission and counter comments on the remand report made by the appellant. The AO in his order has tried to infer that Shri Arun Kumar, Shri Suresh Prasad and Shri Utam Kumar are not Supervisor but contractor of the assessee. Whereas the assessee stated that they wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 6,10,411/- and has observed as under :- 6. Ground no. 3 relates to addition of Rs. 6,89,541/- and addition of Rs. 6,10,411/-. 6.1. I have gone through the order of the learned AO as well as the written submission made by the appellant. The assessee in his submission has not specifically dealt this issue. However the assessee before the AO has submitted which has already been quoted herein supra. So far disallowance of Rs. 3,80,000/-and Rs. 2,01,282/- is concerned, the AO has inferred is correct. So far disallowance of 10% of expenses of Rs. 7,11,280/- at Rs. 71,128/- is concerned is not proper. Hence out of Rs. 6,89,541/- is concerned, the assessee will get a relief of Rs. 71,128/-. Hence addition of Rs. 5,81,282/- is hereby confirmed. 9. During the course of hearing the ld. DR has argued above grounds of appeal only and supported the order of Assessing Officer and could not bring any new cogent evidence to controvert the above findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order, which we uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of Revenue. 10. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that one of them is bogus. Accordingly Rs. 3,80,000/- debited under the head Architect Drawing & MAP approval, is disallowed is added to the total income. Further details of payment under this head shows Rs. 2,01,282/- was paid to Shrithee Designer 8s no TDS was deducted over it. No reply for the above was furnished by the assessee. Hence, the same is disallowed because as the provisions of section 40(a)(ai) of the I.T.Act,1961 same is disallowable expenditure. Further as the details & ledger furnished by the assessee under the head Architect Drawing & MAP Approval are contradictory to each other, 10% of Rs. 7,11,280/- (12,50,562 - 2011282 - 3,38,000) is disallowed & to total income of the assessee. Thus total of expenditure disallowed under this head comes to Rs. 6,10,410/-(Rs. 2,01,282/- +Rs. 3,38,000/- +Rs. 71,128/-). Whereas on perusal of the CIT(A) order, we find that the CIT(A) while dealing with the disputed issue has observed that "So far disallowance of Rs. 3,80,000/- and Rs. 2,01,282/- is concerned, the AO has inferred is correct." We find that the AO has observed that Rs. 3,80,000/- has been debited by the assessee under the head Architect Drawing & MAP app....