Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 690 - ITAT MUMBAIValidity of admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A – Typographical error - Held that:- The typographical mistake is inconsequential because it has not resulted into excess or inflated claim of purchase - the assessee has produced the reconciliation before the CIT(A) showing the discrepancy in the figure of only one party in question and all other purchases in respect of remaining parties were taken at correct figure and even this incorrect figure written in the details due to inadvertent typographical mistake have not resulted in any excess or inflated claim of purchase as debited in the P&L Account - when it is apparent by examining the detail already placed on record that it was only a typographical mistake and has not resulted in the excess claim and in the wisdom of CIT(A) it was not required to be investigated by the AO – there is no illegality on the part of the CIT(A) - department has not pointed out as to why the reconciliation furnished by the assessee should not be accepted and the claim of purchases debited to the P&L Account is not as per the actual purchases and correct figure – thus, there is no reason to interefere with the order of CIT(A). Deletion of labour charges – Held that:- The AO has not examined the issue from the angle that the labour charges claimed by the assessee are bogus but the adhoc disallowance was made on the ground that some of the vouchers are self made - in the nature of civil construction work, hiring of daily labourers on daily wages is inevitable – thus, the adhoc disallowance made by the AO is without any finding of bogus claim is not justified – thus, there is no error or illegality in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition – Decided against Revenue. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Held that:- In the quantum appeal on the issue of addition on account of bogus purchases the penalty would not survive – thus, the order of CIT(A) is upheld deleting the penalty – Decided against Revenue.
|