2023 (12) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of the Id. Commissioner of I.T. (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the unproved bonus payments claim disallowed amounting to Rs. 30,67,765/- to 20% of the disallowance on estimation basis, when the assessee could not furnish any details either before the AO or the CIT(A) establishing the said bonus payments in its entirety. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made towards unproved bonus payment claims on the finding that due to lapse of time the records could not be produced by the assessee is misplaced since the assessee had not established the bonus payments even during the assessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer and the onus is on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer, based on the entries in the assessee's own books. 4. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of Id. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of Textiles and readymade garments in the name and style of M/s. Veera's Creations. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, admitting total income of Rs. 1,97,95,800/-. The assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evidence for a sum of Rs. 1,13,57,935/- only. The balance sum of Rs. 30,67,785/- is not supported with necessary evidences. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the ld. DR and perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee could not produce necessary supporting evidence for balance amount of bonus paid to staff amounting to Rs. 30,67,785/-. It was the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that, due to lapse of time he could not file necessary evidence to justify payment of bonus, but fact remains that he had paid bonus to staff on two occasions. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has recorded categorical finding that, because of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 20,000/- on a single day, but payment has been made on different dates, which is less than the prescribed limit u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also taking note of fact that, the tax auditor has not made any comments on cash payments in excess of prescribed limit contrary to section 40A(3) of the Act, observed that the Assessing Officer without verifying necessary cash book to ascertain the quantum of payments has simply made disallowance with a vague observation on the basis of bonus register, ignoring the arguments of the assessee that cash payment in a single day to any person does not exceeded the prescribed limit as per the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The findings of the facts....