9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue and Shri.Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, the Learned AR argued on behalf of the assessee. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made towards unaccounted receipt of Rs. 21,44,400/- 3.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a contractor and engaged in trading of sulphur and sarees. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. The assessee had raised a bill on 3.4.2006 falling in Asst Year 2007-08 for Rs. 21,44,400/- and had accounted the same as its business receipts in Asst Year 2007-08 and claimed the TDS. The said contract receipt of Rs. 21,44,400/- was duly subjected to deduction of tax at source by M/s Arvind Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which is forming part of the paper book filed for Asst Year 2007-08. The Learned AR argued that the assumption based on which the Learned AO proceeded to make this addition that the TDS has been made by the party in Asst Year 2006-07 and claimed by the assessee without offering the corresponding income in Asst Year 2006-07 is factually incorrect. He further argued that the assessee had duly offered the subject mentioned receipt of Rs. 21,44,400/- and claimed TDS thereon only in Asst Year 2007-08. 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find from the paper book containing pages 1-41 filed by the Learned AR that M/s Arvind Construction Co. Pvt Ltd had duly received in April 2006 the invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee by way of account payee cheques and the assessee had also derived income in the form of sales of those sulphur and cement. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 3." Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition towards bogus purchase of Sulphur and Cement despite the failure on the part of the assessee to prove that the same were purchased and utilized for repairing of road. 4.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. In response to this, the Learned AR took us to the relevant pages of the paper book submitted by him before us containing pages 1 to 41 and pleaded that no interference is called for in the Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
