TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that Datamation has orally confirmed that they are paying maintenance and electricity charges to the assessee. Since the statement of the assessee has been corroborated by Datamation during the remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer, therefore, no addition is called for. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.3 by the assessee is allowed. Addition being loans and advances received - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the various documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities show that the assessee has filed sufficient details regarding the receipt of loans and advances given in the earlier years. The affidavits filed by the assessee from all the parties with confirmations and their PAN details had not been found to be false or untrue. Further, the amounts are very small. Considering all the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly the same is deleted and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition being the amount received from Mr. Deepak - assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction that he has received cash from the office boy Deepak against which cheque was issued to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58/- d) Data making (Maintenance charges received) ₹ 3,73,459/- e) Electricity on account ₹ 1,77,277/- f) Deepak ₹ 5,000/- 7. The Assessing Officer accepted the first two items. So far as the amount of ₹ 3,73,459/- is concerned, it was explained by the assessee that as per clause 2 of maintenance agreement, the contract is commencing from 03.03.1999 and further as per clause 3 of maintenance agreement charges agreed shall be payable in equal installments of ₹ 12,000/- on every month in cash or by cheque in advance latest by 7th day of respective month, besides 10% yearly revision will be added as applicable. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the same on the ground that it is not understood as to how the assessee has carried on the maintenance work without receiving any amount from Datamation Consultants. Further, no other agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived from Datamation Consultants Pvt. Ltd. towards maintenance charges. Further, a perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that while adjudicating the penalty appeal the assessee filed certain certificates from Datamation which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his verification and the Assessing Officer in her report dated 11th March, 2016 had stated that although Datamation has not been able to produce their books to show the payment, however, they have orally confirmed that they are paying maintenance and electricity charges to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) had cancelled the penalty on this amount. Since the Datamation has already confirmed before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings that they are paying the maintenance charges to the assessee, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the cash deposit in the bank account stands explained being the amount received from Datamation. Accordingly, the same is deleted. Ground of appeal No.2 by the assessee is allowed. 12. In ground of appeal No.3, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and PAN details and affidavit of the parties and, therefore, no addition should have been made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) should not have confirmed the addition. I find merit in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the various documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities show that the assessee has filed sufficient details regarding the receipt of loans and advances given in the earlier years. The affidavits filed by the assessee from all the parties with confirmations and their PAN details had not been found to be false or untrue. Further, the amounts are very small. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly the same is deleted and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 16. In ground No.5, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,000/- made by the Assessing Officer being the amount received from Mr. Deepak. 17. After hearing both the sides, I find the Assessing Officer rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
