TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) of the Act? ii. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,59,843/- on account of bad -debts written off without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to provide evidence to prove that bad debts are written off in the accounts of the assessee? iii. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,59,848/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act by ignoring the procedure prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court for write off an amount as irrecoverable in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 391 (SC)? iv. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,54,804/- on account of excess material consumed during the year by holding that the assessee had furnished necessary details during appellate proceedings but without considering the facts recorded by the AO in assessment order that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the AO in this regard during assessment proceedings? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1,56,39,164/- u/s 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act and deduction u/s 37 of the Act to an extent of Rs. 39,77,243/- of amounts return of during the year. It is found from the assessment order that the A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 1,41,59,848/- by copying the assessment order for Assessment Year 2011-12 and pasted to the assessment order under consideration at paragraph No. 2.3 to 2.6. The Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the said addition specifically gone into the said matter and also decided the issue on merit as under:- "However from the copy of the assessment order u/s 143(3) for AY 2011-12 filed by the appellant at the appellate stage revealed that the same disallowance of Rs. 1,41,59,848/- has been made with the same discussion thereby making it clear that even a "cut & paste job" requires alertness. This casual, or rather callous approach has led to a 'ghost' disallowance of Rs. 1,41,59,848/- instead of examining the appellant's claim of bad debts written off in the relevant PY (AY 2012-13) amounting to Rs. 1,96, 16,407/- despite there being evidences and submissions regarding details of the claim of bad debts written off and acknowledged in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Real Tech Rs. 31,39,164/ • Advance against purchase of land at Gurgaon Rs. 37,71,300/- • Jaintex Interior PVC doors Rs. 1,96,16,407/- • Human Care Medical Charitable Trust Rs. 2,05,943/- Rs. 1,25,00,000/- For reasons mentioned against each that are supported by appropriate evidences (copies of relevant. documents/accounts) along with the submissions mentioned at para 4 above. However, it is observed from the impugned order that despite a claim of bad debts written off in the return of income, in the assessment u/s 143(3) vide the impugned order, the amount disallowed in this regard is Rs. 1,41,59,848/-. Accordingly, the disallowance of the appellant's claim of deduction for bad debts written off in the impugned order (Rs. 1,41,59,848/-), is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8. Considering the fact that the Ld. A.O. while making the above addition, has not applied his mind and copy-pasted the portion of the order of the previous year in the year under consideration, which has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A) after examining the issues on merit as well. Thus, we find no error or infirmity of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifference between the material consumed and the revenues disclosed (Rs. 2,19,98,830/- minus Rs. 31,44,026/-) amounting to Rs. 1,88,54,804/- was added to the income returned by the appellant. It is observed from the submissions as well as copies of the appellant's communication at the assessment stage that vide its letter dated 4/03/2015/13/03/2015 the appellant had communicated not only the information that was already given but also provided copies of relevant documents in its support with regard to the comparatively lower revenues generated despite similar materials consumed. The appellant's stand that its project of Kabul Lines ran into trouble with the Army authorities was supported by necessary documents - copies of invoices disclosing amount claimed and that passed finally. Its receipts where TDS was made is available in Form 26AS. Also details of materials purchased and closing stock in FY 2010-11 including its valuation in the audited books of accounts of the appellant were furnished at the assessment stage as argued by the AR of the appellant and which is borne out from records. This included the communication dated 23/2/2015 wherein the reasons for high c....