TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure of ₹ 6,10,410/-, the AO has wrongly mentioned as ₹ 3,38,000/- instead of ₹ 3,80,000/-. The CIT(A) has also overlooked the same. Therefore, we restore this disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer for a limited purpose and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the actual expenses. Interest u/s. 234B - HELD THAT:- As relying on AJAY PRAKASH VERMA [ 2013 (1) TMI 140 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] direct the AO to recomputed the interest u/s.234B on the basis of total income declared by the assessee in the return filed. - ITA No.335/Ran/2017, CO No.02/Ran/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2018 - Shri N.S.Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Revenue by: Shri A.K.Mohanty,JCIT(Jr. DR) Assessee by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. ORDER Pavan Kumar Gadale, The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A), Jamshedpur, dated 12.09.2017 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee has also filed cross objection. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uneration is paid in excess and also the CIT(A) has overlooked the findings of AO and granted the relief. In respect of second ground the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act as the payment was made to contractors or to the supervisors without deduction of TDS and similarly ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) has granted relief of material purchased without any basis and relief granted in respect of ₹ 71,128/- out of the addition of ₹ 6,10,411/-. Ld. DR further supported the order of AO and prayed for allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 7. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the order of CIT(A) and ld AR drew our attention to the observation of CIT(A) at page 29 of the order and similar in respect of deletion of addition by the CIT(A) on the labour payments made to supervisor and the CIT(A) observed that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not attracted and also supported with other vital observations. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the first issue, the contention of ld. DR is that the remuneration is paid in excess and also the CIT(A) has overlo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Remand report it has been stated that there were differences between the ledgers of the supervisors and the monthly statement as submitted during the assessment hearing but the appellant stated that may be due to programming/technical error, however total of the debit and credit entries over the year are in conformity with the ledger of the supervisors. Before the Ld. AO Shri Arun has accepted that he was working as supervisor for the company. Shri Suresh Prasad was present for statement on 30.08.2017 but it was already very late by the time statement of Arun Kumar was recorded. The appellant stated that Shri Utam Thakur had already left the company due to some differences with the company. The Ld. AO at furnished in the tabular form the wage sheet and ledger of the three supervisor and compare the same with the wages payable ledger and worked out some differences for this the appellant stated that during the course of assessment proceeding this issue was raised as it was evident from point no. 2 page of the assessment order to which the assessee submitted that the labour charges in advertently included supply made by the Natraj Construction, Palak Construction and Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40a(ia), disallowance out of material purchased and estimated disallowance out of expenses claimed. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justify in confirming addition of s. 5,98,282/- correct figure 5,39,282/- being payment to MNAC for Map approval which is fully verifiable. There is mistake for the figures referred in assessment order to the extent that the figure of ₹ 3,38,000/- has been referred as 3,80,000/- for making addition. The addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is fit to be deleted. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in charging interest at assessed income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court which is binding on the authorities below for the state of Jharkhand. Interest can only be charged on the return income not on the assessed income 12. In the first ground of cross objection, the assessee has supported the order of CIT(A) and expressed that the order of CIT(A) is a speaking and detailed order. 13. In the second ground ld. AR submitted that there is a mistake in the in the addition made by the AO which the CIT(A) has overlooked the same and sustained the addition. We find that the AO while making disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a limited purpose and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the actual expenses. This ground of Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.3- In this ground the assessee challenged the action of CIT(A) for charging of interest u/s.234B of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of Ajay Prakash Verma in ITA No.38 of 2010 reported in 2013(1) TMI 140, wherein the hon ble High Court has held that interest u/s.234B can be levied only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. 15. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in confirming the order of AO and supported his orders. 16. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie the disputed issue, being charging of interest u/s.234A 234B as envisaged by ld. AR, is covered by the decision of Hob ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ajay Prakash Verma in ITA No.38 of 2010 reported in 2013(1) TMI 140. The Hon ble Court in Para23 24 held as under :- 23. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
