AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,23,42,928/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference between Form 26AS and P&L A/c and another amount of Rs.7,74,970/-on account of unexplained cash deposit. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in distribution and sales of I.T. products. It is also engaged in providing AMC services in respect of computer hardware and other related I.T. products. It filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs 23,66,524/- under the normal provisions and income of Rs.20,16,550/- under MAT provisions. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) were issued and served on the assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. 6. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He noted that M/s. Wipro Ltd has certified that an amount of Rs.5,31,614/- has been deducted against the billed amount of Rs.5,13,61,714/- which roughly works out to 1%. So far as the other parties are concerned, he noted that the assessee did not file any confirmations, but only enclosed ledger copies of discounts. The Assessing Officer noted from the details furnished by the assessee that in respect of M/s. Acer India, the gross receipts received under services is Rs.3,50,450/- and the discount as per the ledger copy furnished by the assessee is Rs.31,77,220/-. Similarly, in respect of Microsoft, the gross receipts received under servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before the Assessing Officer and at the same time furnished the details of Form- 26AS along with TDS deduction details and customers name details. As per the appellant the service charges amounting to Rs.5,98,70,068/- in place of Rs.6,62,98,563/ adopted by the Assessing Officer. I the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned the service receipts of Rs.6.63.37,203/- as per Form 26AS. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify and adopt the correct service receipts as per Form-26AS and reconcile the difference amount of Rs.64,28,495/- Further, there is a difference of Rs.1,23,42,928/- (Rs.1,87,71,423 - Rs.64.28,495). Since the appellant himself considered the Service charges receipts as Rs.5,98,70,068/- and no other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Referring to page 26 of the Paper Book, she drew the attention of the Bench to the cases where the assessee has offered both the sales and service income being received from the same client and the turnover as per P&L A/c is more than that is mentioned in form 26AS. She submitted that although the assessee submitted the reconciliation statement so made before the learned CIT (A), however, the learned CIT (A) without going through the details, sustained the addition which is not justifiable. 10.1 So far as the cash deposit of Rs.7,74,970/- is concerned, she submitted that the assessee has also a branch at Vizag and an amount of Rs.2,18,950/- was deposited on 1.8.2012, an amount of Rs.3,53,070/- on 24.9.2012 and an amount of Rs.2,02,950....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that although full reconciliation was filed before the learned CIT (A), however, the same was not properly appreciated by the learned CIT (A), therefore, the addition should be deleted. We find the assessee before the Assessing Officer has stated that the difference is due to accounting policy adopted by the Auditors. Even in the submission given before the Assessing Officer, still there is reconciliation difference of Rs.34,907/-. We find that the assessee has filed certain details before the learned CIT (A) reconciling the di....