TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- has arisen to the company which has not been shown correctly. The Tribunal in the hand of the recipient of the amount on account of repairing charges has held that there was bonafide mistake committed by the assessee in the books of account which was rectifiable at any point of time - the assessee company M/s. Silicon Computech Private Limited has rectified the same and passed necessary entries in the books of account and hence there was no justification for making any addition on this ground - M/s Silicon Computech Private Limited has paid correct amount of repairing charges - the addition u/s 69C made in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained expenditure under the head repairing expenses by lower authorities was not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - He also observed that the assessee had issued a TDS certificate for ₹ 20,190/- on the total amount of ₹ 10,20,000/- whereas the assessee had debited expenses of ₹ 4,25,000/- at the end of the year. In reply to show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that the company had provided maintenance charges for the whole Financial Year 2004-05 of ₹ 10,20,000/- to Business Communication (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. The company had deducted TDS of ₹ 20,910/- from the total amount of ₹ 10,20,000/- and paid it on 11.05.2004. Copies of TDS details were also filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the company discontinued maintenance work and passed reverse entry on 28.01.2005 for ₹ 5, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. Therefore, he made addition of ₹ 5.95 lakhs to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment. 7. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 4.3 I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the A.R. carefully. It is seen that the appellant failed to prove how the payment of residual amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- was made. The Ld. A.R of the appellant stated that except for the TDS certificate there was no material on record to show that the appellant had incurred expenditure of ₹ 10.20 lakh. It was further stated that only an amount of ₹ 4,25,000/- was paid and the balance amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer has elaborately and clearly explained in the body of order that the addition is made u/s 69C treating the amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- as unexplained expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O is hereby confirmed. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that similar addition was made in the hands of the Business Communication (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. who was the party from whom maintenance work was got done by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of ₹ 5.95 lakhs as the income of said Business Communication (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. The matter travelled before the Tribunal and the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust, 2004. He submitted that if the amount of ₹ 85,000/- representing monthly repairing service charges is multiplied by 12 calendar months, an aggregate comes to ₹ 10,20,000/- on which the TDS was rightly deducted and deposited to the credit of Central Government. He submitted that the Assessee Company as well as M/s SCPL are related parties and it should be verified that what amount has been claimed by M/s SCPL in their assessment and if they have claimed only ₹ 4,25,000/-, then the claim of the assessee may be considered. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the P L Account of M/s SCPL, a copy of which is filed in the compilation by the assessee, clearly shows the correct amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of the Central Government is not a ground to make the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee company without any basis. The only reason advanced by the AO while making the addition was that in the present case TDS has been deducted and has also been paid to the Government Account, thus, income on account of repairing of ₹ 10,20,000/- has arisen to the company which has not been shown correctly. This reasoning of the AO is not sustainable in law. The mistake in the account books of the assessee committed bona fide by the assessee is rectifiable at any point of time. We find that the assessee company as well as its Group concern M/s SCPL has rectified the same and has passed the necessary entries in their books of accounts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
