9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue is directed against the order dated 15.9.2011 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The only dispute raised by the revenue in this appeal is regarding the decision of AO to allow retainership charges after admitting fresh evidence. 2. Facts in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.47,65,235/- as retainership charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished any proof of reimbursement of expenditure. Accordingly the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.38,65,235/- (Rs.47,65,235 - Rs.9,00,000) and added to the total income. 2.1 The assessee disputed the decision of AO and submitted before CIT(A) that the amount disallowed by AO represented reimbursement of expenses to which TDS provisions were not applicable. The assessee produced Expenses Statement from w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the form of bills and vouchers the debit notes etc. which had not been produced before AO. It was therefore, urged that the order of CIT() should be set aside. The ld. AR on the other hand submitted that the assessee had filed details vide letter dated 8.12.2009 which had already been taken cognizance by AO and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had filed additional evidence bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) is not a reasoned and speaking order. Since AO has given a clear finding that no evidence had been produced regarding reimbursement of expenditure CIT(A) was required to give opportunity to AO regarding any evidence produced in support of reimbursement of expenditure. In our view, order of CIT(A) can not be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the issue back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
