TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness expenditure - Held that:- the Assessee is unable to even prove that the said amounts have been disbursed in the course of the business of the Assessee and was incurred for the purpose of the business of the Assessee. True, the payment of speed money to the workers at the port cannot be treated as an illegal payment and consequently, the explanation to Sec. 37(1) would not apply. However, it is for the Assessee to prove that the said money has been paid to the workers of the port. Just by saying that the payments have been made to the workers in the port does not substantiate the claim. It should be supported with some documentary evidences. The port area is a secured area. The workers there would have names and would be given identification cards. ID numbers would atleast be available. Even these have not been provided by the Assessee. As the Assessee has not been able to prove the basic fact that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of the business of the Assessee and that the payments made were disbursed to the port workers, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the AO is liable to be restored - Decided against assessee - ITA Nos. 198 To 200/PNJ/2015, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the said amounts. It was the further submission by the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the Assessee by holding that the payments to clubs for sponsorship of the football tournaments was not in the nature of advertisements and was also not in the nature of any contract. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 5. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that Vasco Sports Club and Cause of our joy have specifically given letters confirming that the said payments did not involve any advertisement in any souvenir or in any other manner. The said sponsorship amount was spent exclusively for the cause of development of sports in the city. It was the further submission by the ld. AR that the provisions of Sec. 194C of the Act had been amended w.e.f. 1.10.2009 relevant for the A.Y 2010-11 wherein TDS was liable to be made on advertisements. It was the submission that the assessment year under appeal was 2008-09 and even on this ground the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y facts in that connection is on the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and b. Lakshimaratan Cotton Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. The grounds are identical for both the A.Ys 2010-11 2011-12. 9. It was submitted by the ld. DR that in the course of the assessment it was noticed that the Assessee had paid speed money to the workers at Murmogao Port, more so, the loaders. It was the submission that in the ports the wages are fixed and payments cannot be made in excess of the prescribed wages. It was the submission that the payments were made in cash and no evidence was produced to show as to whom the payments were made to. It was the submission that the AO had disallowed the said payments of the speed money on two counts; first on the ground that the Assessee was unable to identify the persons to whom the payments have been made and same was not supported by any evidence and the second, the payment of speed money was an illegal payment barred by law and consequently, explanation u/s 37(1) of the Act came into play. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nage is about 44817 and the amount claimed as per the list is ₹ 1,97,220/-. The cash voucher is dt. 22.11.2010. How this cash voucher tallies with the said ship which has been loaded has not been shown. One of the vouchers is for an amount of ₹ 13,460/- and the other is for ₹ 4,230/-. As per the list provided in the paper book in respect of the said M.V. Guodian 9 there is no claim for this amount of ₹ 13,460/- or ₹ 4,230/-. Thus, though the cash payment voucher specifies the person s name but does not contain the address or contact number or any other details. The payment vouchers specifies that the payment is towards disbursement for speeding up loading of a particular ship but the dates do not tally nor does the amount in the cash payment voucher tally with the amount mentioned in the list provided by the Assessee. Another interesting aspect is that another ship, M.V. Flag Alexandros M/D was loaded between 16.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 for a tonnage of 41700 allegedly incurring an expenditure of ₹ 2,11,120/-, another by the name of M.V. Pacific Primate M/D between 14.5.2010 and 26.5.2010 loading a tonnage of 43465 at an alleged speed money of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
