TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14. Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but basically its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,45,372/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the taxable income of the assessee. 2. The assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Ld. Assessing Officer that there is some mismatch between the receipts shown by the assessee, vis-à-vis. as per 26AS i.e. TDS details. He made the following additions:- Sl. No. Section Name of the Party A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the same can be examined after providing opportunity to the appellant. In his Remand Report dated 26.10.2021, the AO has rebutted the claims of the assessee in a party wise manner and has stated that the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidences relating to its claims. With respect to Tata Metaliks Dl Pipes Ltd., the appellant has failed to submit details of scrap claimed to have been purchased and the figures of corresponding sales. With respect to HEG Ltd., although the assessee has claimed TDS of Rs. 5515/-, but the assessee failed to offer Rs. 55150/- in its return of income. With respect to its claim towards Public Health Engg. Division, the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents before the AO. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are the sundry creditors of the assessee company. The company had made some purchases from the respective parties and accordingly made payment to them. One of the possible views is that the impugned companies might have deducted the TDS mistakenly. The assessee did not take into the consideration those amounts as its income since it did not receive any amount from them. Therefore, the assessee did not make any default in computing its total income and the addition made by the AO is unjustified and needs to be deleted. For the sake of your honors convenience the transactions with such parties are briefly discussed hereunder; With regard to transactions with M/s. Tata Metaliks PI Pipes Limited. With respect to the transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fering with the amount shown as per 26AS because of adjustments in the bill value which is quite natural in theses type of transactions. Therefore, we can see that the transaction with Tata Metaliks DI Pipes Ltd. being in nature of purchase, cannot be treated to be the income of the assessee. As per the provisions of TCS the seller is required to collect tax at source from the buyer which the impugned party has done and accordingly the amount was reflected in Sl. No. 3 of Part B of 26AS of the assessee which the Ld. AO has by mistakenly treated as income of the assessee. The addition is purely of mis-conceptional nature. Hence, the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 8,79,718/- is unjustified and needs to be deleted. With regard to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an assessee cannot be made just by relying on the 26AS available. It is unjustified as any addition just based on the 26AS can be vague and the same can appear because of any mistake committed by someone else". 5. During the course of hearing, we have gone through these details with the assistance of Ld. representative. We have also gone through the remand report dated 26.10.2021, whose copy has been placed on record by the assessee. A perusal of the finding of the Ld. 1st Appellate Authority would reveal that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the nature of transactions. The assessee has pointed out that it has made advance payment of Rs. 9,39,708/- to Tata Metaliks DI Pipes Limited for purchase of scrap materials. This clai....