TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he I.T. Act amounting to ₹ 33,25,728/-which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in confirming the addition u/s. 40a(ia) amounting to ₹ 33,25,728/-on vehicle hire charges without considering the fact that section 194C of I.T. Act was not applicable to the assessee, therefore, the action of the C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in confirming capital introduction of ₹ 1,43,500/-as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that on the facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd added the same to the net profit of the assessee. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the said order, now the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a decision of Kolkata ITAT A Bench in the case of Rakshit Transport Vs. ACIT ITA No. 261/Kol/2009 for AY 2005-06 dated 11th September, 2009 and submitted that the issue is covered by the decision cited above and the Hon ble Tribunal in the said case had deleted the addition on the self same ground as that of the assessee in the instant case. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. After hearing the rival submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysed the facts. On careful perusal of the material available on record at page nos. 42 to 78 i.e. statement of truck drivers payment for the year ended 31.3.2005, page Nos. 79 to 94 consisting of the truck wise transportation charges for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.9.2004, vouchers for payment of such transport charges at pages 145 to 184, we are of the considered opinion that there is neither oral nor written agreement with these truck drivers for transportation of the cement manufactured by Ultratech Cement Manufacturing Co. to different destinations. Under these facts and circumstances, we find that the ratio laid down in the case of CIT-Vs-United Rice Land Ltd. reported in (2008) 174 TAXMAN 286 (Punj. Har) is completely in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Therefore, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Respectfully following the ratio of the decision cited supra, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. These grounds of appeal of the assessee are, therefore, allowed. 7. Ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is in respect of confirming the capital introduction of ₹ 1,43,500/-as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the AO observed that during the year under consideration the assessee introduced ₹ 3,61,000/-in cash as capital in his proprietary concern. In the absence of any plausible explanation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were incurred for purchasing automobile parts tyres, tools, fuel etc. When the AO asked for the purchase bills, the assessee produced purchase bills for ₹ 3,53,413/-and for the remaining amount of ₹ 11,06,348/-he produced the cash vouchers signed by the drivers who had driven the vehicle for the assessee. The assessee explained that when the drivers went on trips they did not maintain proper bills for the expenses for various items of expenditure incurred by them. Therefore, for these expenses, the assessee got signed vouchers from them for various items of expenditure. The AO did not accept this contention of the assessee and held that in respect of vehicle upkeep expenses of ₹ 11,06,348/-the assessee did not adduce ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
