TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of the addition under challenge. Consequently, ground No. 1 is dismissed. Addition u/s.40(A)(2)(b) on account of payment made to the interested parties - addition was made by the AO on account of disallowances u/s. 40(A)(b) of the Act and the Ld. Commissioner observed the said amount has been made in the nature of advance and not made towards expenses, hence, the provision of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable - HELD THAT:- Commissioner that the Assessee's firm should have deducted the amount to its capital account but the same is not covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Ld. Commissioner accepted the claim of the Assessee to the effect that payment of Rs. 17 lakhs is not u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act as the amount of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debit the amount to the capital account of Shri Vivek Bhushan, partner, who is owner of the property. In view of this fact, the said amount shown as advance against property has been debited to capital account of the partner during the FY 2011-12 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13. Considering all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason and/or material to controvert the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. Even in the Central Scrutiny report dated 17.04.2015 on the issue under consideration 'no appeal was recommended' therefore, in totality we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner qua issue in hand. Hence, ground No. 3 also stands dismissed. - ITA No. 2552/Del/2015 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee being aggrieved, challenged all the additions including the aforementioned before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order deleted the said additions against which the revenue/department has preferred the instant appeal by raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 1,63,47,106/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of sundry creditors by ignoring the facts that the ass failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing the PAN/Bank account of the creditors and even two confirmation is on record with two different signature from same address of the creditors. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the remark left/no such person hence reconciliation statement in respect of these creditors could not be verified. 3.2. Against the remand report, the Assessee by filling reply dated 17.09.2014 refuted the claim of the AO and submitted that the Assessee contacted M/s. Jansevak Textiles Mills who stated that they have not received any letter from the AO. With regard to JMD Prints on contacted by the Assessee, the aforesaid party stated that they have shifted their office and their present office shifted to RZ-147, Tuglakabad Extn, New Delhi. JMD prints confirmed the amount. With regard to Collection India, the firm has stated that they have send confirmation copy of account to the AO, the copy of the same is enclosed. 3.3. Against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any reason and/or material to controvert the finding of the ld. Commissioner in deletion of the addition under challenge. Consequently, ground No. 1 is dismissed. 4. Coming to Ground No. 2 which pertains to the addition of Rs. 17 lakhs made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(2)(b) of the Act, on account of payment made to the interested parties without mentioning the same in the audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act. The addition was made by the AO on account of disallowances u/s. 40(a)(b) of the Act and the Ld. Commissioner observed the said amount has been made in the nature of advance and not made towards expenses, hence, the provision of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable. 4.1. In respect of amount of Rs. 9 lakhs payment m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reditors without disclosing in the current asset. The AO made the addition of Rs. 47,29,235/- u/s. 68 of the act by observing that the said amount made as advance for property, was also deducted from the creditors but the same should have been separately disclosed under the current asset. Further, this advance account had been created and balance had been increased by small amounts year after year for which no explanation was given by the Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act disallowed the said amount and added back in the income of the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.1. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner sought remand report from the AO who vide reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
