TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O erred in making such a conclusion and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and has found that the entire contract work has been executed by M/s. BCRCPL and w.e.f. 31.03.2008, the proprietary concern has been taken over by the Private Limited Company with all its assets and liabilities, so the question of deducting TDS does not arise. Not only that M/s. BCRCPL has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year and has also remitted tax on the amount of which the contract was executed and for that the payment was received on which the AO has made disallowance and, therefore, the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was not warranted and, therefore, rightly the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition and we confirm the same. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) and warrants no interference and, therefore, we confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - I.T.A No. 35/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2017 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM And Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For The Appellant : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR For The Respondent : Shri V. N. Purohit, FCA ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata dated 17.09.2013 for AY 2009-10. 2. This appeal of revenue is time barred by 35 days and a condonation petition along with supporting affidavit has been filed by the revenue. After perusing the condonation petition and the concession given by the ld. AR, we condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal for sales tax and cess respectively and the balance amount of ₹ 6,87,36,528/- (Rs.14,17,247 + ₹ 6,40,365 = ₹ 6,66,78,916/-) was the expenses paid/credited to M/s. BCRCPL and, therefore, the said amount of ₹ 6,66,78,916/- was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to allow the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. We note that the assessee an individual had a proprietary concern by the name and style of M/s. Basu Co., and was an enlisted class-I (R B) contractor vide the Govt. of West Bengal, Public Works Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off at ₹ 1,88,00,000/-. We note that there has been supplementary agreement dated 22.06.2009 between the assessee and the Private Limited Company in respect to take over of the proprietary concern with retrospective effect from 31.03.2008 which proposal was put up before the Govt. of West Bengal and by order dated 14.07.2009 the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of West Bengal was pleased to inform the assessee the Governor s approval allowing the proprietary concern of the assessee to function thereafter in the name of M/s. BCRCPL which matter has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at pages 6 and 7 of the impugned order. From the aforesaid facts which are discernible from the documents on records clearly shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment proceedings noted that M/s. BCRCPL has allotted 1,99,288 shares valued at ₹ 1,99,28,800/- to the assessee. Since, according to the AO, assessee could not explain the share application money introduced into the company by him he treated it as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Act and made the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us. 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. At page 16 of the impugned order, we note that the assessee had made the disclosure of its share capital as on 31.03.2008 relevant for AY 2008-09; and as on 31.03.2009 relevant for AY 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in the relevant assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10 and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and he does not want us to interfere in the impugned order. We also take note of the fact that the M/s. BCRCPL has taken over the proprietary concern of the assessee as a going concern and it was a genuine take over. We note that the shares were allotted to the assessee after computation of its net value of its assets and liabilities which was converted into share capital by the company in the name of assessee and there was no monetary transaction in respect to the allotment of shares by the Private Limited Company. In exchange of takeover of the proprietary concern of the assessee, the assessee was allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
