TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT has also been collected at 8%. Hence the same would not attract the provisions of TDS. The payment made to Mr. Ajay Mishra was pertaining to two bills of ₹ 17,000/- each, i.e., each payment did not exceed the limit of ₹ 20,000/- and the aggregate payment did not exceed ₹ 50,000/-. Hence these payments would also not attract TDS provisions. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete both these additions. The order passed by Ld CIT(A) on these two payments stands set aside. Disallowance of purchases - Held that:- We notice that the assessee has furnished full details of miscellaneous purchases and the tax authorities have made the addition without examining the same. Hence we are of the view that this addition has been made on surmises and conjectures. Accordingly we are of the view that this addition needs to be deleted in entirety. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the entire amount of addition relating to miscellaneous purchases. Addition of sunder creditors - Wrong entry on purchases - Held that:- In its letter dated 31-12-2012, the assessee has explained that the purchases of ₹ 3,26,019/- was made from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the order passed by Ld CIT(A), both the parties have filed these appeals before us. 3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the validity of reopening of assessment is being questioned. The case of the assessee is that the AO had received audit objections on the very same points on which the reopening was done. He submitted that the AO had replied to the audit parties giving suitable reply to the objections. The Ld D.R submitted that the audit objections can be a source of information about escapement of income and hence reopening is valid as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PVS Beedi (237 ITR 13). 4. The Ld CIT(A) has observed that the AO has followed the due procedure and has also explained the reasons for reopening. Accordingly he has held that the reopening is valid in law. We notice that the AO has listed out various points in the reasons for reopening, which show that the assessing officer has prima facie case of escapement of income. As submitted by Ld D.R, the audit objections can be the source of information. Accordingly we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in upholding the reopening of assessment. 5. The next issue urged by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns require consideration of the AO. Accordingly we restore the matters relating to other payments to the file of the AO for examining them afresh after considering the explanations of the assessee. The order of Ld CIT(A) passed on this issue stands modified accordingly. 10. The next issue urged by the assessee relates to disallowance of purchases. The same issue is also being contested by the revenue. The assessee had claimed a sum of ₹ 2,52,45,182/- as purchases. While giving the details of purchases, the assessee had shown a sum of ₹ 11,24,784/- as miscellaneous purchases. The AO disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish relevant details. The Ld CIT(A) sustained disallowance to the extent of 15% and allowed the remaining amount. The assessee is challenging the addition sustained by Ld CIT(A) to the extent of 15% and the revenue is challenging the relief granted by Ld CIT(A). 11. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessing officer had asked the details of purchase under broad categories and accordingly the assessee grouped the purchases and shown remaining amount as miscellaneous purchases. He submitted that the assessee has clearly exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. 16. We heard the parties on this issue. In its letter dated 31-12-2012, the assessee has explained that the purchases of ₹ 3,26,019/- was made from M/s Newspark Trading Co. P Ltd and it was wrongly credited to the account of M/s Parasprabhu Grani Marmo P Ltd. It was further submitted that the said mistake was rectified in the succeeding year. The assessee also furnished ledger account copies of the succeeding years to substantiate its contentions. The Ld A.R invited our attention to the copy of letter dated 31.12.2012 and also the copies of ledger accounts. Since it was a case of accounting error, we are of the view that the addition of ₹ 3,26,019/- is not called for. Accordingly we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. 17. The next issue relates to the addition of ₹ 1,53,976/- made by the AO. The creditor named M/s Shree Enterprises filed confirmation letter stating that the assessee has made purchases to the tune of ₹ 17,41,556/-. However the ledger account of the assessee showed the purchases from the above said party at ₹ 15,87,580/-. Hence the AO treated the difference amount of ₹ 1,53,976/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
