9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee for which there was only partial compliance. The AO has mentioned that the assessee did not make compliance even in the proceedings of assessment year 2006-07 due to which ex-parte order u/s 144 had to be passed. It appears that due to non production of books of accounts, the AO sought to make cross verification by issuing notices u/s 133(6). 1.1 Coming to the specifics, it was found that the assessee showed payments of Rs.40,34,868/- to Shri Kalim Akhtar Ansari. This person had opening balance of Rs.3,85,427/-. The closing balance was shown as Rs.36,39,441/-. However, in the list of creditors, the balance in the account was shown at Rs.30,475/- only. It was submitted that two accounts were maintained in respect of Shri Ansari. The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount has been wrongly claimed. There is no time to carry out any further investigation. Therefore, the amount has been disallowed by invoking the provision contained in section 41(1). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. In respect of the first addition, it is mentioned that the amount paid to Shri Kalim Akhtar Ansari has been added on presumptions, without bringing in facts on record. The AO obtained the bank account but did not pursue the matter further. The transactions have been held to be doubtful in nature. However, the fact remains that all the payments have been subjected to tax deduction at source. Therefore, the disallowance is devoid of any merit or logic. In respect of latter addition, it has been mentioned that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chose to transfer the amount to Kalkaji bank account. The assessee did not have any domain over the money and it was not for him to examine how the money has been utilized by him. It is a matter of fact that Shri Ansari walked away with a number of third-party cheques lying in the office of the assessee. For this unauthorized act, a police complaint has been filed on 14.10.2009. It is further submitted that the amount of job work payable was carried over from the earlier year and it is not the liability of this year. The amount has also not been credited to the profit and loss account. Thus the provision contained in section 41(1) is not applicable. Accordingly it is urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 4. We have conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
