TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details/documents called for therein which were examined by the A.O. on test check basis and placed on record. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed expenses on sundry creditors, freight expenses paid, loading and unloading expenses, car and telephone expenses, exemption of dividend income under section 10(35) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and deduction under section 80C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. called for certain information/documents by issuing notices, in response to which, the assessee offered his explanation. However, the explanations offered by the assessee was not found acceptable to A.O. and, therefore, the A.O. disallowed the expenses claimed and not allowed deductions as claimed by the assessee and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.6,49,08,820/- as against the returned income of assessee at Rs.11,91,320/- under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2013. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 24.08.2017 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of hearing, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that the assessee at the first instance has furnished the list of 27 sundry creditors before the A.O. and when the A.O. called for the full address of the sundry creditors such as name, address, PAN etc., the assessee filed another set of sundry creditors containing 14 parties only instead of 27 and since the list of sundry creditors furnished by the assessee do not depict the correct names and the amounts of sundry creditors outstanding against the name of the so-called sundry creditors, the A.O. correctly made the impugned addition and, thus, he prayed that the order of the A.O. be confirmed on this issue. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. had never issued questionnaire dated 06.07.2012 to the assessee. He submitted that whenever the A.O. asked for confirmation of the account, the assessee provided the particulars of very Truck owner and filed all relevant documents and details relating to the various parties. However, the A.O. had not considered the documents a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t TDS in respect of freight charges paid. The assessee out of total payment of freight charges of Rs.6,88,52,781/- had only deducted the TDS at Rs.1,22,29,474/- and, therefore, the A.O. rightly added the remaining freight charges paid by him amounting to Rs.5,66,23,307/- to the total income of assessee and prayed that the order of the A.O. be confirmed. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the authorities below were not disputed the fact that the freight expenses in question were not paid or were bogus and the A.O. had unable to mention where TDS was to be deducted as per law. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), after examining the remand report from the A.O, rightly deleted the addition. He prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 11. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that in the instant issue the A.O. had failed to point out where the TDS was not deducted by the A.O. and also not treated the freight expenses in question as bogus. Therefore, we find force in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order as to which are such payments, on which, the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS. He submitted that during the remand proceedings also, the Certificate issued by Dy. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-II(I), Mumbai as per which TDS was not applicable in respect of Wages and Levy received by the Goods Transport Labour Board, Mumbai at Rs.28,00,349/- out of Rs.53,17,313/- during the assessment year under consideration. However, the A.O. ignored this Certificate of DDIT (Exemptions) and made the impugned addition, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the A.O. has not considered the Certificate issued by one of Competent Authority of Income Tax Department which is with respect to exempt of deduction of TDS. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed a sum of Rs.1,40,563/- out of loading and unloading expenses and the balance addition of Rs.53,17,313/- was deleted by him i.e., [Rs.54,57,876/- (-) Rs.1,40,563/- = Rs.53,17,313/-]. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, thus, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed on this issue. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The dispute of the Revenue on t....