TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the balance of the parties. Thus we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes - I.T.A. No.943/Kol /2015 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, FCA For The Respondent : Shri Prabhal Chowdhury, JCIT,DR ORDER Per Waseem Ahmed, AM This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 25.02.2015. Assessment was framed by I.T.O., Ward-33(3), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 21,63,590/- ₹ 6,19,108/- on account of non deduction of tax. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm which is engaged in the wholesale business of ladies suits. The assessee in the year under consideration has incurred an expense of ₹ 2163590/- and ₹ 6,19,108/- towards freight and forwarding expenses in the name of M/s. Indian Air Express. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the above expenses have been incurred without deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS for short) under the provision of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the said expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested to restore the issue to the file of AO for further verification. However, the learned DR vehemently relied in the order of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it was observed that Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses of ₹ 23,52,612/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act i.e. non-deduction of TDS. Before us Ld AR submitted various case laws and frankly requested the Bench to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to verify that whether the recipient of the above income has paid the taxes in their individual hands. We find that on the similar facts and circumstance this Hon ble Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the purchases of ₹ 19,792/- as bogus. 10. The assessee has shown purchases for ₹ 36,22,692/- from M/s. Heritage whereas the party has shown sales of ₹ 36,02,900/- in its books of accounts. This information was revealed in consequence to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. As a result, the difference of ₹ 19,792/- was observed and which was treated as income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) explained that the difference is arising out of account of credits notes/discounts as such there was no undisclosed purchases. However, the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
