Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 381 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of wages - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that:- Perusal of the remand report shows that the Assessing Officer has examined all the facts and evidences. The assessee submitted Muster Sheet of wages before the Assessing Officer. Nothing adverse therein has been found by the Assessing Officer. Further, it may be seen from the history chart that the ratio of wages in the year under consideration is lowest in four years. There is no prohibition under the law that the wages cannot be paid in cash. It is a widely prevalent practice that wages are usually paid in cash in our country. The workers do not necessarily have bank accounts. The law itself has provided the provision of making payment in cash subject to the limits as have been laid in section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, something which is permitted by law itself cannot be taken back by the Assessing Officer indirectly. Further, the Assessing Officer had before him complete facts and evidence and he was free to make any further verification if he had any doubts. Thus, in our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was very fair in reducing the disallowance to 10% of the total claim made by the assessee. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of salary - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- complete details and evidences have been furnished before the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer has examined the details and evidences and nothing adverse was found and he was free to examine whatever further he required and the disallowance cannot be sustained merely on the ground that salary was paid in cash, particularly when complete details and evidences are available. It is further seen that the assessee submitted Salary Muster, and nothing adverse has been reported in the remand report. Keeping in view the facts and submissions and material placed before us, we find that no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Admission of additional evidence by the learned CIT(A) in terms of rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 - Held that:- No case has been brought out by the learned Departmental Representative to convince us as to how and in what manner provisions of rule 46A has not been complied with by the learned CIT(A). On the other hand, it is seen by us that the learned CIT(A) had called for the remand report, providing thus adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine all the details and evidences being relied upon by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) was justified in considering the evidences and submissions submitted by the assessee. See CIT v/s Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.
|