2019 (10) TMI 1620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome Tax (Appeals)-XX has wrongly, arbitrarily and against the law and facts of the case, confirmed the addition/disallowance of Rs 10,00,000/- made on adhoc/estimated basis to the income of the assessee being disallowance on account of unverifiable purchases out of total purchases of Building Material amounting to Rs 2,47,54,135/- whereas the Books of Account along with details of purchases from various suppliers with bills and vouchers in evidence of purchase of the same were duly produced during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX has wrongly, arbitrarily and against the law and facts of the case, confirmed the addition of Rs 24,07,842/- to the income of the assessee being disal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee's submissions made before the CIT(A), as mentioned at page 3 of the appellate order. In fact, it has been stated that the assessee has never given any explanation that any bills or vouchers has been missing. If the books of accounts along with all the bills have been produced and trading account has been accepted, then such an adhoc disallowance on account of purchases cannot be made based on general observations. If there were discrepancies and defects, then A.O. could have rejected the books of account and trading result. Here, it is not a case where any evidence has not been produced and even the Assessing Officer has failed to specify or point out any defect in the books of account produced by the assessee. Accordingly, we do not fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore, no case of disallowance in terms of proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act can be made. In so far as the applicability of proviso brought by the Finance Act, 2012, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 to contend that it has to be applied retrospectively. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that PNB Housing Finance Ltd. cannot be treated as a Nationalized Bank. It is just mere a subsidiary of Punjab National Bank and therefore, such a payment will not fall u/s. 194A(3)(iii). In so far as offering of interest income by PNB Housing Finance L....