Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 469 - ITAT KOLKATATDS on account of hire charges - Held that:- Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., (2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside this issue to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify whether the payees have included the subject-mentioned receipts in their respective returns and paid taxes thereon or not. If that is so, then disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be made in the hands of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on account of balance-sheet difference by wrongly treating it as unexplained investment - Held that:- during the course of assessment proceedings AO found the difference of small amount at ₹ 20,000/- between ledger provided by party and amount show by assessee its books of account. However, we find from the order of authorities below that the addition was made by the AO on account of the difference in the balancesheet item but without disputing gross income declared by assessee. The difference of ₹20,000/- is arising from the ledger of the party of assessee which is a regular party and to whom assessee raises the bill for the services provided. In our view the AO failed to bring on record the bill of income which has not been recorded in the books. Therefore, we find that the difference crept out of the balance-sheet item does not result as understatement of income. Accordingly we are convinced by the reasoning adduced by assessee. Accordingly in our considered view, the addition made by AO on account of unexplained investment for Revenue account which subsequently confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is without any sound basis - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C - Held that:- AO has treated the sum as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act as this fuel cost was not reflecting in the accounts of BECML. However the ld. AR submitted that this cost of fuel was paid by the assessee from the premises of the dumper owner to the place of the BECML. Therefore the same shall not be reflected in the statement of BECML. We find that the authorities below have disallowed the difference amount of ₹2,99,459/- on the ground that it was not reflecting in the statement of BECML. However we find from the ground raised by the assessee that the amount of ₹2,99,459/- was paid by the assessee directly for the running of the dumper from the place of dumper owner to the work place of BECML and when the dumper was not in the custody of BECML. The lower authorities have not considered this aspect in their order as raised in the ground of appeal by the assessee. Therefore in our considered view this aspect of the fuel cost needs to be verified by the AO
|