TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been rebutted, do not find any reason to deviate from elaborate findings recorded by CIT(A) and accordingly, same is hereby confirmed – Decided against Revenue. Need to Revised return u/s 139(5) – Held that:- no requirement for filing of revised return u/s 139(5) for mistake of clubbing of expenses of material purchase under head labour expenses - As it does not result into any change of income or expenditure - Confirm the entire findings of CIT(A) and dismiss grounds raised by department – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.53/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao and Shri Amit Shukla, JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak For the Respondent : Mr. Mandal Vaidya ORDER Per: Ami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t most of the amount pertain to purchase of raw material but was wrongly grouped under the head labour charges. Out of Rs.21,87,956/- only Rs.3,25,760/- pertained to labour charges and balance sum was in respect of purchase of raw material. The AO did not accept the assessee s contention on the ground that while furnishing the list of parties form whom purchases of above Rs.20000/- was made, were not incorporated in the list of labour charges, which assessee has claimed to be on account of purchases of raw materials. He, therefore, concluded entire payment of Rs.21,87,956/- is to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS. 3. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that, to corroborate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remand report, the assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has received the assessment order only on 12-12-2009 and it is not correct that the assessment order was finalized on 26-11-2009, which is evident from the overwriting on the dates in the order as well as in the demand notice. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the four parties to whom summons were issued have duly confirmed the transaction for the purchase of material which itself goes to show that the assessee s contention is correct. An affidavit of the Accountant was also filed that there was a mistake while preparing the grouping of labour expenses, wherein a sum of Rs.18,62,196/-, which was on account of purchase of raw material were clubbed into labour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o question of revision of return. On these aspects also, he has given a very detailed reasoning in para 3.6 at pages 7 8 of the appellate order. Ultimately, based on facts and material on record, learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee s claim after observing and holding a sunder :- 3.6 So far as the merits of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the AO has himself in the remand report stated that 133(6) letter to 4 parties were sent who have confirmed the transaction. Once it is established that the payments of 18,62,196/- to the parties were on account of purchases and not for labour charges, no provisions of TDS would be applicable on such amount. Out of the remaining payment of Rs.3,25,760/- which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subjected to remand proceeding also, it cannot be held that these are all afterthoughts. Moreover, these bills have not been found to be non-genuine either by the AO in the remand proceeding or by the CIT(A). In fact, the AO himself conducted an enquiry from four parties on sample basis and in such cases with four parties, he got the confirmation directly from the parties that the assessee has made purchases from them, which was only classified under the head labour expenses. Once that is so, it cannot be held that the assessee s submissions/explanation is not correct. He also referred to copies of the bills and the details of purchase, which were classified under the head labour expenses, which have been placed in the paper book filed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the invoices reflect that these relate to purchase of material from various persons only. It is also evident from the material placed on record that the AO had issued summons under Section 131 to various persons asking the details of sale made to the assessee during the financial year 2006-07. In response, these persons have also confirmed the sale made to the assessee and also informed about the payment received by them on such sale of materials. Once these evidences have not been rebutted, we do not find any reason to deviate from the elaborate findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the same is hereby confirmed. 7. We also agree with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) that there is no requirement for filing of revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
