TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – thus, the addition of an amount of Rs. 32,13,620 made by the AO to the income returned is not justified - thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 863/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - B Ramakotaiah And Asha Vijayaraghavan, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Solgy Jose T Kottaram For the Respondent : Sri S Rama Rao ORDER:- PER : Asha Vijayaraghavan This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 15.02.2013 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. For the A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2009 admitting total income of Rs. 38,64,840. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed determining the total income at Rs. 70,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation bills also. Moreover, assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 1,24,01,835/- under the work expenses head but TDS made on the amount to Rs. 1,06,75,631/-. For the remaining expenditure, assessee explained that the expenditure incurred is below the TDS limits. On overall observation, it can be concluded that he has inflated the expenditure in the month of March and on the whole year. Particularly the work expenses are related to his own works rather than the franchise work, since the service receipt portion is higher in his own work rather than the franchise work i.e. trading and maintenance of Air conditioners. In view of the above discrepancies found in the work expenses and disproportionate purchase of air conditions and ancillaries, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts of the labour contractors were settled at the end of the year to close their accounts and as such on the last day there are more number of vouchers. Further these vouchers does not relate for the works carried out not only on that day, but they also belongs to that month or on that period. It was further submitted that during March there are substantial works were carried out. The AO has not appreciated the facts properly and further has failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of 200 vouchers is only Rs. 13,12,054. However, the AO resorted to make addition of Rs. stating this 24,80,367 stating this discrepancy to be reason. 6. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the assessment order and the written submissions filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out considering the quantum involved. The CIT(A) observed that any analysis of profit ratios should be made on sound basis by bringing into all the facts related to the assessment, comparable cases, market conditions and general practices. The CIT(A) stated that going by some number of vouchers and referring to nondeduction of TDS on expenses where there is no need to deduct so, the Assessing Officer had taken a contracted view of the results admitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) held that such findings, in any way, are not tenable and he was not inclined to accept the disallowance made. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 32,13,620. Aggrieved, the Department is in appeal before us. 8. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
