TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceedings who himself did not verify the factual position with regard to accounting treatment in the accounts leading to unwarranted disallowance. The addition made is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on account of Service Tax of DG Set - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The amount so disallowed represents annual service charges paid to Sealand Diesel P.Ltd. which is nothing but expense of recurring and routine in nature for maintenance of DG Set. The tax auditor under misconception reported service contract charges for maintenance of D.G.Set to be as service tax on DG Set leading to unwarranted addition. This finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any material on record, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of unexplained credits in respect of deposits shown from various customers - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) examined the issue in his order on the basis of material available on record, such as finding given on the assessment record, submission of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect was utilized for the purpose of business of the company. Even before this Tribunal, no such evidence is placed by the assessee.- Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- In the case in hand, the assessee has merely supplied the PAN, no confirmation or contra account were furnished. Therefore, Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, same is hereby upheld. In respect of Globe Trade Point, the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee had disclosed address of the party, namely Globe Trade Point. With this party, the assessee had made credit sales of ₹ 1,13,218/- in the month of Octoboer-2005 against which the assessee received ₹ 2 lacs in the month of October-2005 partly against the credit sales and partly as advance. The assessee instead of adjusting the said receipt against the credit sales accounted, the same as dealer deposit. Since in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, no contra account was furnished by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. This finding of ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had made credit sales as well as received deposits from the concerned party, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld.CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad may be set-a-side and that of the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 22/12/2008, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made various disallowances/Additions, i.e. depreciation on car of ₹ 1,11,020/-, disallowance of capital expenditure in respect of interest and loan processing fees and bank charges of ₹ 24,08,684/-, disallowance of service tax on DG Set of ₹ 17,632/-, addition on account of unexplained credits in respect of deposits of ₹ 2,23,99,000/-, addition on account of unexplained credits in respect of share capital and share premium of ₹ 9,00,000/- and addition on account of excess claim of expenditure in respect of gas purchase from ONGC Ltd. of ₹ 11,58,603/-. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and material placed before him partly allowed the appeal. While partly allowing the appeal, the ld.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located the same to respective asset accounts after capitalizing the same. Interest and other financial expenses debited in the profit and loss account represent interest and other financial expenses in respect of first unit (i.e. old unit) for entire period of twelve months and in respect of second unit (i.e. new unit) for three months (i.e. from January, 2006 to March, 2006) only. I find that entire addition was made by Assessing Officer owing to non production of relevant accounts by the appellant s counsel in the course of assessment proceedings who himself did not verify the factual position with regard to accounting treatment in the accounts leading to unwarranted disallowance. The addition made of ₹ 24,08,684/- is directed to be deleted in view of the fact that there is no infirmity in the accounting treatment made by the appellant. 4.1. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any material on record, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.1 of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 5. Second ground of Revenue s appeal is against del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment record, submission of the assessee and remand report of the AO. The ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on each and every transaction related to credits. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has considered the material available on record and more particularly contra-accounts of the concerned parties. The Revenue has not rebutted the evidences placed by the assessee, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.3 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. Fourth ground of Revenue s appeal is against deletion of addition of ₹ 9,00,000/- made on account of unexplained credits in respect of share capital and share premium. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. 9.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has examined the issue and given a finding on fact which is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. In support of his contention, he drew our attention towards appellate order. 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of ₹ 1,11,020/- on account of depreciation; interest and insurance in respect of motor car owned and accounted for in the books by the appellant but registered in the name of Director in RTO records. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition in respect of two parties amounting to ₹ 2,00,000/- (Globe Trade Point) and ₹ 11,50,000/- (S S Enterprise, Nepal) u/s.68 being received as dealer deposit/advance received from customers holding the same to be deemed income of the appellant. 16. First ground of Assessee s appeal is against confirming disallowance of ₹ 1,11,020/-. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance. He submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench (ITAT D Bench Ahmedabad) rendered in the case of Swagat Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Jt.CIT in ITA No.2084/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10, dated 28/06/2013. 16.1. On the other hand, Sr.DR submitted that the facts in the present case are different than the facts before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Swagat Infrastructure Ltd.(supra). 17. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint, the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee had disclosed address of the party, namely Globe Trade Point. With this party, the assessee had made credit sales of ₹ 1,13,218/- in the month of Octoboer-2005 against which the assessee received ₹ 2 lacs in the month of October-2005 partly against the credit sales and partly as advance. The assessee instead of adjusting the said receipt against the credit sales accounted, the same as dealer deposit. Since in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, no contra account was furnished by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. This finding of ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had made credit sales as well as received deposits from the concerned party, therefore in the absence of the contra account, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.2 of assessee s appeal is rejected. 20. In the combined result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeal of the assessee both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on Friday, the 06th day of November, 2015 at Ahmeda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
