TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are of the view that no further addition can be made under the provisions of section 37 of the Act despite the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidences. Before reaching to the conclusion that the assessee failed to deduct the TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Actr.w.s. 40(a)(ia) it is pertinent to see whether the provisions of TDS are applicable to the assessee being an individual. In other words the provisions of TDS shall be applicable in case of an individual if its books of accounts are subject to audit in pursuance to the provisions of section 44AB - But there is no such finding qua to this provision of law. Until, it is brought on record that the assessee was subject to the provisions of section 194C we are of the view that no disallowance can be made of the expenses claimed by the assessee under the provisions of section 194C read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. In view of the above, we disagree with the finding of the learned CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Receipt of commission from the Bajaj Allianz life insurance company Ltd - AO is of the view that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2181419 30513 4. On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that it has executed the contract which was awarded by the company namely IVRCL LTD. based in Hyderabad for an amount of Rs. 20,91,670.00 which was outsourced to various parties. As such, the assessee against such project has earned an income of Rs.8,90,000 which has been duly accounted in the books of accounts and offered to tax. As such the assessee has outsourced the work at a cost of Rs.12,01,860 against the value of the contract awarded to it for Rs. 20,91,670.00 only. Accordingly, the assessee contended that he has already accounted the project receipt in the books of accounts for Rs.20,91,670 only. 5. The assessee, likewise, submitted that the entire amount of gross receipt of Rs.80,259.00 from Bajaj Allianz life insurance company Ltd cannot be made subject matter of addition. According to the assessee, the element of profit embedded in such commission received from Bajaj Allianz life insurance company Ltd should be made subject to tax. However the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. It is also a fact that said amount has been paid in cash without deduction of any TDS. The appellant's P L a/c was perused and it was seen that the appellant has shown receipts of only Rs.8,90,000/- as Explosive Job Work Income in place of Rs.20,91,670/-. In the said P L a/c. appellant has claimed various expenses including purchases, administrative expenses, etc. The AO has added the entire item of Rs.20,91,760/- only on the ground that appellant has not shown any receipts from IVRCL in his P L a/c. I don't agree with the AO in adding the entire receipts of Rs.20,91,760/-. Appellant has already shown Rs.8,90,000/- as Explosive Job Work Receipts. Meaning thereby that implicitly expenses of Rs.12,01,670/- as payments to sub contractor had been claimed. AO's action should have limited to this sum to decide whether the same should be allowed or not. Appellant's general argument that such expenses against the receipts from IVRCL should be granted is correct. The appellant has claimed certain expenses (against the receipt of Rs.8,90,000/-) in his P L a/c. and which has been allowed by the AO. The problem remains only with the sum of Rs.12,01,860/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly the same was added to the total income of the assessee. However the learned CIT-A found that out of the contractual amount of Rs.20,91,670.00, a sum of Rs.8,90,000 has already been accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee which was offered to tax. Thus, the balance amount of Rs.12,01,860 which has been claimed as an expense by the assessee was subject matter of dispute. As the assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidences for the so-called expenses of Rs.12,01,860.00, the learned CIT-A confirmed the addition for 2 reasons. Firstly, there was no documentary evidence in support of such expenses and therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. Secondly, the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such expenses amounting to Rs.12,01,860under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the learned CIT-A confirmed the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.12,01,860.00 after giving part relief of Rs.8,90,000.00 only. 13. From the preceding discussion, we note that there is no ambiguity to the fact that the amount received by the assessee from the company namely IVRCL LTD. for Rs.20,91,760.00represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
