TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- Disallowance deleted by learned CIT(A) is on the submissions and explanation submitted by the assessee and some of the disallowances have been upheld on the basis of estimate. Keeping in view of the entirety of the facts mentioned above and also fact that the assessee has shown net profit @ 78.92%and also fact that the Assessing Officer did not follow the aforementioned Instruction of CBDT, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the order of learned CIT(A) so as to it relates to Ground 2 to 5 of the Departmental appeal. It may be mentioned here that the Department did not bring any material on record to suggest that findings recorded by learned CIT(A), are contrary to the facts narrated by learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 5613/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - Shri I.P. Bansal And Shri Rajendra JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. P. Daniel For the Respondent : Shri Pawan K. Birla ORDER Per I.P. Bansal (JM):- This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A) dated 7.6.2012 for A.Y. 2009-10. Grounds of appeal read as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as failed to produce the nature of expenses claimed under this head and also the proof and confirmation of its receipt. 2.propos ground No. 1, facts are as under. The assessee is carrying on business as commission agent and commission income was shown at ₹ 1,91,84,002/- from Twinkle Envirotech Ltd. and Royal Twinkle Star Club Ltd. and net profit before tax was declared at ₹ 1,51,39,106/-. From the details generated from ITS, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received brokerage income of ₹ 2,73,97,631/- from Twinkle Envirotech Ltd. and ₹ 1,84,05,979/- from Royal Twinkle Star Club Ltd. Thus, total difference between the brokerage shown by the assessee in her profit and loss account and details generated from the system was computed at ₹ 2,66,19,608/- as per following table inscribed in para 5 of the assessment order:- 3.The assessee was required to explain the same and it was submitted that there were some double entries and the income shown by the assessee is correct. The assessee also submitted conformation letters from both companies in respect of commission earned and TDS deducted thereon to support that whatever is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand it was submitted by ld. AR that the conformation received from both the parties are filed at page No. 1 2 of the paper book alongwtih Form No. 26AS, copy of which is filed at page No. 3 4 of the paper book. It was further submitted that the profit and loss account of the assessee is filed at page No. 6 of the paper book. It was submitted that the income shown by the assessee in profit and loss account is tallying with the income shown in the confirmation and also in the TDS certificate. Thus, it was submitted by ld. AR that learned CIT(A) did not commit any error in accepting the claim of the assessee. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim simply on the ground that the evidence regarding reversal of the entries was not filed by the assessee in respect of the two companies from whom commission has been received. It was submitted that in view of the Form 26AS, there was no need to file any such evidence. Thus, it was submitted by ld. AR that addition has rightly been deleted by learned CIT(A) and his order should be upheld. 7.We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. After careful consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue should be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored back. On other disallowances Ld. DR relied on the order passed by AO submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in granting relief to the assessee. 11.On the other hand, it was submitted by ld. AR that the complete details of name of persons were submitted to the Assessing Officer and these details are comprised at page No. 14 to 24 of the paper book. It was submitted that the amount ranges from 1600 to 2100 and assessee has earned huge commission from those persons. Thus, it was submitted that after appreciating the evidence filed by the assessee the addition has been deleted, therefore order of learned CIT(A) on this issue should be upheld. On other disallowances it was submitted by Ld. AR that after considering the facts Ld. CIT(A) has given appropriate relief and his order should be upheld. 12.We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenditure as these were paid in cash and the assessee could not submit appropriate evidence to prove incurrence of expenditure. Before learned CIT(A) it was submitted that for ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
