TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in adding an amount of Rs. 1,61,382/- on account of increase in business income declared by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has wrongly disallowed Rs. 71,950/- on account of payments exceeding the limits specified u/s 40A(3). 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has grossly erred in disallowing deduction claimed under chapter VI-A to the tune of Rs. 77,500/-. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has wrongly disallowed credit of TDS of Rs. 1,81,185/- though the income against this TDS deducted has been accounted for in the assessee's income. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the said appeal. 4. Appeal on Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Appeal on Ground No. 2 has not been pressed, therefore, it is dismissed as 'not pressed'. 6. Appeal on Ground No.3 is against the disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brought on record different case laws which are as under:- In Goenka Agencies vs Commissioner of Income Tax on 12 May, 2003 Equivalent citations: V (2003) 184 CTR Cal 104,2003 2631TR145 Cal, it was held that- "the identity of the payee who was an income tax assessee was established and the genuineness of the transactions was not doubted or disputed. It was held that the circular of the Board was not exhaustive but only illustrative. It was further held that the Income-tax Officer had to take a pragmatic view of the matter The Income Tax Officer should take a practical approach to problems and strike a balance between the direction of law and hardship to the assessees. He should not enmesh himself in technicalities. After all, the object is not to deprive the assessee of the deduction which he is otherwise entitled to claim. Where the amount was paid in cash or received in cash, the Assessing Officer has to find out whether the transaction is genuine or not and if he finds that the transaction is genuine, he should allow the deduction. The circular of the Board is not exhaustive, it is only illustrative and the Assessing Officer has to take into account the surrou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transactions was not doubted or disputed. It was held that the circular of the Board was not exhaustive but only illustrative. It was further held that the Income-tax Officer had to take a pragmatic view of the matter The Income Tax Officer should take a practical approach to problems and strike a balance between the direction of law and hardship to the assessees. He should not enmesh himself in technicalities. After all, the object is not to deprive the assessee of the deduction which he is otherwise entitled to claim. Where the amount was paid in cash or received in cash, the Assessing Officer has to find out whether the transaction is genuine or not and if he finds that the transaction is genuine, he should allow the deduction. The circular of the Board is not exhaustive, it is only illustrative and the Assessing Officer has to take into account the surrounding circumstances, considerations of business expediency and the facts of each particular case in exercising his discretion either in favour or against the assessee." 13. After going through the findings given by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) on this issue and the submissions filed by the Department as well as after h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deduction claimed, the genuineness of the deduction claimed cannot be ascertained and hence not allowed. 15. During the proceedings before us, the Counsel of the Assessee has filed copies of receipts of life insurance etc. on which deductions u/s 80C has been claimed. The Counsel of the Assessee disputed the findings given by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) in the nature of return of income filed u/s 153A/B/C of the Act as the return of income filed in response to, is the same u/s 147 of the Act. The ld. counsel has brought on record different case laws which clearly show that the Assessee can make fresh claim in its return of income filed in response to notices u/s 153. 16. The Department relied on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works' ,198 ITR 297 (SC.) The ld. Counsel argued that this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works (supra) is applicable for section 147/148 of the Act. It is not to be applied on the return filed in response to section 153A/B/C of the Act. 17. On the contrary, he has relied on different case laws some of which hare as under:- 115 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he credit of TDS to the appellant accordingly. The ld. Counsel has not brought on record the findings of the A.O. on the directions of the CIT(A). 22. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 23. We have considered the submissions of both the parties on this issue and we are of this considered view that it is only the Assessing Officer who can calculate the refund of TDS to the appellant ( in case applicable) as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to calculate the amount of refund to be given to the appellant as per the provisions of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, this ground stands allowed. 24. Ground No.6 is general in nature. 25. In the result, appeal of the Assessee (ITA No. 156/Chd/2019) is allowed. ITA No.157/Chd/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 26. In this appeal, the Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in adding an amount of Rs. 80,142/- on account of disallowing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2014-15) 36. In this appeal, the Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has grossly erred in treating business expenditure to the tune of Rs. 35,583/- as personal expenditure. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the said appeal. 37. Ground No.1 is general in nature and need no specific adjudication. 38. Appeal on Ground No. 2 against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating the business expenditure to the tune of Rs. 35,583/- as personal expenditure of the Assessee. The ld. CIT(A), in his order has given his findings as under: - "It was noticed by the AO during the assessment proceedings that expense of Rs. 35,583/-was incurred through credit card for personal expenses of the assessee have been debited as business expense in the case of M/s Can and Ables Entertainment Ltd. of which the assessee is a Director. Thus,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of credit of TDS, has already been adjudicated by us while deciding the Ground No. 5 of Assessee's appeal in ITA No.156/Chd/202. Further, both the representatives have fairly conceded that the issue is exactly similar except the extant of amount involved. In view thereof, considering the decision arrived at by us above while deciding Ground No.5 of Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 156/Chd/2019, this ground is decided in favour of the Assessee. 49. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to calculate the amount of refund to be given to the appellant as per the provisions of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, this ground stands allowed 50. Ground No.4 is general in nature. 51. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. ITA No.170/Chd/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) 52. In this appeal, the Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in charging the net profit rate at 12% and ignoring the net profit of Rs. 66,622/- witho....