9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. (A) erred in allowing the ground of appeal of the assessee on account of difference in payment received as per 26AS and as per books without considering the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to submit necessary confirmation of third parties related to TDS deduction. ii) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A), be set-aside and that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. iii) The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appeal proceedings" 2. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the lower authorities are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised and also at the time of payment made on certain bills. The Assessing Officer further recorded that the assessee failed to produce such bills and confirmation of the parties. 4. In order to verify the transaction the Assessing Officer issued noticed under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s Met Trade India Ltd. and M/s Jindal Buildsys Ltd. M/s Jindal Buildsys confirmed the payment made to the assessee of Rs. 20,00,000/-. No reply was receipt on M/s Met Trade India Ltd. The assessee explained that the payment receipt from M/s Jindal Buildsys Ltd. is the same amount which have been received on behalf of M/s Met Trade India Ltd. The AO recorded that M/s Met Trade India Ltd. has failed to produce confirmation. Thus on the basis of differenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee also explained all his efforts to get confirmation of its turnover from the parties before filing return, or during the assessment proceedings but there is no response from the party. The assessee prayed for deleted the entire addition. 6. On the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) called remand report from Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer furnished his remand report dated 22.01.2018. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee claimed that there are four cases where Met Trade India Ltd deducted tax at source, once, at the time of booking stage and again on at the time of payment. Further, in one case, where the tax was deducted at source twice, once by the third party and secondly by Met Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DS has to be treated as payment of tax. The assessee claims that there was wrong entry and wrong credit, the assessing Officer has to examine the same with open mind and find out, if there was a genuine credit and found in Form 26AS. The payer is also tax payer in the country. The Revenue cannot seek the burden to the assessee on the ground that the payer could not be contacted, the prayer is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The assessee requested the prayer company's Director can be very well be contacted by the Assessing Officer and to ascertain error in TDS return. The assessee also explained that initially burden to prove is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of credit shown in 26AS and accordingly the assessee provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not logic of payment of Rs. 12.07 Crore, for the partly completed project in the current AY 2013-14. The assessee is also furnished the bills of current assessment year of Rs. 8.32 Crore, against which the payment of Rs. 7.70 Crore was received. The ld. CIT(A) after referring the remand report wherein the Assessing Officer reiterated the similar contention as made for assessment order, the ld. CIT(A) held that from the credit of receipt in the bank statement, copy of running account (RA) bills, the assessee raised for total amount of Rs. 9.32 Crore, which is with regard to partial completion of project, out of total contract value of Rs. 10.20 Cr. Thus, the case of the assessee bonafide and the addition is not sustainable. Aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matching. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits the order passed by AO may be restored. 10. We have considered the submissions of ld CIT-DR for the revenue and perused the material available on record. As noted above the AO made addition on account of difference as per statement shown in Form 26AS and the total receipt shown by the assessee. There was a difference of Rs. 3.74 Crore, qua the statement shown in Form 26AS and total receipt shown by the assessee. The AO made addition for want of proper verification. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by accepting the version that total value of contract was at Rs. 10.20 Cr. and the assessee has shown total receipt of contract of Rs. 10.89 Crore, out of which Rs. 8.32 Crore was shown during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
