TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. DR ORDER Per R. K. Panda , AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th July, 2018 of the CIT(A)-5, Delhi, relating to AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised only one ground of appeal which reads as under:- That order passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi is against law and facts on the file inasmuch as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing a sum of ₹ 10,80,754/- being 6.5% out of ₹ 1,66,26,991/- paid as fabrication charges in cash on the alleged ground that some of the bills/vouchers are unverifiable. 3. Facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verifiable. 3.1. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under:- 4.4 The order of the AO as well as the arguments of the appellant have been examined. The order of the CIT(A) for the year 2012-13 is also seen. It is seen that the CIT(A) had given relief of the entire addition of ₹ 6,24,58,750/- for that year. The CIT(A) has stated that books of accounts were examined, since they were not produced before the AO. In the present case in the year under reference the AO has examined the books of accounts and the AO has also given detailed reasoning with reference to additions made. The AO has further made an addition of only 6.5% of the total amount paid in cash, despite noticing concrete instances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the same would show that there is no certainty of the payments. Further, principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings and every year is different. He accordingly submitted that since the order of the AO is a reasoned one and the CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee after analysing the facts of the case, therefore, the same should be upheld and the ground raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find, the AO, in the instant case, disallowed an amount of ₹ 10,80,754/- being 6.5% of the cash payment of ₹ 1,66,26,991 against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of assessee to incur fabrication charges. The A.O. has not rejected the books of account of the assessee and no specific defects have been pointed out in maintenance of the books of account. No addition has been made by the A.O. for violation of any TDS provisions. The details of expenses at PB-19 shows that the expenses are essentially incurred on fabrication charges, consumption of indigenous consumable stores, import of components and spare parts and cleaning and forwarding and freight. Thus, for earning income, assessee shall have to incur expenses on fabrication charges. In the absence of any specific defect pointed-out in the maintenance of the books of account, there were no justification for the A.O. to disallow the enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
