Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1727 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of site expenses and consumables - HELD THAT:- Some of the vouchers in claim of the expenditures were missing. However, as per Section 37 of the Act, the deduction is allowed when the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business / profession. The primary onus of proving such expense are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business lies on the assessee. In this case some of the bills/ vouchers were not produced during the assessment proceedings. AO is justified in disallowing a fraction of these expenditures for want of proper verification. Hence, the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are on distinguished facts. It is further noted that AO has only disallowed ₹ 5 lacs out of ₹ 2.10 crore claimed as site expenses and ₹ 3 lakhs out of ₹ 1.24 crore claimed as expenses on account of consumables, hence, the amount of disallowances are quite justified and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the additions on these counts, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on these additions and accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee stand dismissed. Addition u/s. 68 - differences in the receipts declared by the assessee and the receipts shown in Form 26AS - HELD THAT:- Difference is mainly on account of mobilization advance which is taken into receipts as and when settled. However, the assessee has not filed any such details. In absence of proper reconciliation, the AO was justified in making the addition on account of difference as compared to the Form 26AS. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly did not interfere in the findings of the AO and upheld his action by dismissing the issue raised by the Assessee before him. In our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition in dispute does not require any interference, on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the Assessee.
|