TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated – Held that:- The CIT (A) had given reasons for limiting the disallowance including the portion of the GP rates of the previous year - The Tribunal also while confirming the approach adopted by the CIT(A) might have enhanced the admissible enhancement of Rs. 8 lakhs - The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence – thus, as such no question of law arises for consideration in the appeal – Decided against Revenue. Deletion made on account of difference in receipts – TDS certificate and P&L account not tallying – Held that:- The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal both accepted the assessees’s explanation that M/s. CFCL would in certain cases, instruct the assessee to deliver the goods at the places of various dealers from the Railw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak Mahindra in the earlier year which are not allowable as per the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee? (b) Whether in fact and cicumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in not confirming the disallowance of entire unpaid carting expenses of Rs.30,97,735/made by the A.O. On the ground that the same is not verifiable and substantiated? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.21,98,753/on account of difference in receipt as per TDS certificate and as per P L account even through the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting? 2. Question A pertains to the disallowance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.5 lakhs making following observations: 15.4. The submissions of the Auithorised Representative have been considered carefully. It is true that there are no vouchers for unpaid carting expenses but the disallowance of entire unpaid carting expenses is found to be not proper. Mostly, the unpaid carting expenses are in respect of small truck owners in respect of whom the amounts are outstanding and these truck owners are engaged through brokers, this practice has been followed over the years and this is not the first year of such occurrence. The Authorised Representative has given a comparative figure of G.P. for the preceding year i.e. A.Y.2000-01 and for the current year and according to him the G.P. of preceding year is of Rs.22,42, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whom summons were issued and the statement of the parties did not tally with the confirmations filed by the Assessee. We are of the view that some disallowance need to be made. However considering the totality of the facts we are of the view that the ends of justice shall be made if a lump sum addition of Rs.8 lacs is made instead of 5 lacs made by the CIT (A). We thus direct accordingly. Thus this ground of the Revenue is partly allowed. 5. Counsel for the revenue submitted that in absence of reliable evidence, the entire disallowance should have been confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Commissioner without giving specific reasons disallowed the hike summoned up to Rs.5 lakhs which was increased by the Tribunal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Assessee deleted the addition by holding as under: 13.2. I have considered the submissions of the Authorised Representative carefully. A certificate has been filed by the Authorised Representativ from CFCL as per page 235 of the paper book wherein it has been stated to have made provision from accounting year 2000-01 on account of expenses payable to the appellant to the tune of Rs.21,97,915/, which consisted of bill amounts for interest payable, handling expenses, secondary transportation, DSP expenses, standardization expenses and warehouse rent and it has deducted TDS on the said amount to the tune of Rs.70,050/and the net amount of Rs.21,27,865/has been credited in the provision account. Thus, the difference between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome for Rs.21,98,753/i. e. the difference in receipt has been accounted by the appellant in the subsequent year as per the details submitted by the Authorised Representative at pages 232 to 234 of the paper book, the same is not to be added in this year. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.21,98,753/is deleted with direction to reduce the credit to TDS as above. 30. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) Revenue is now in appeal before us. 31. Before us the learned D.R. relied on the order of Assessing Officer where as the learned A.R. supported the order of CIT(A). 32. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. CIT (A) while deleting the addition has held that the Assessee has accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
