9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(1)/154 of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 1,26,459/- made by AO (CPC) by applying n.p. rate of 8.16% on the differential receipt of Rs. 15,48,902/- (30,33,776-14,48,874) reflected in Form 26AS. 3. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 12,95,311/- made by AO (CPC) for commission receipt reflected in Form 26AS without allowing any deduction of expenditure incurred for earning such receipt and without considering that the nature of such receipt is also the same as mentioned in Ground No. 2 above. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the order of AO CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before NFAC Delhi but the same was rejected stating that assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence as to why the payer would deduct tax u/s 194H when the amount paid is against the freight charges. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee has not been pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 2 & 3 are inter-connected and inter-related challenging the adjustment of Rs. 12,95,311/- made by the AO CPC and confirmed by ld. CIT (A). 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted written submissions as under :- " It is submitted that assessee is providing cargo handling services t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these 3 parties have deducted TDS u/s 194H, the receipt from them cannot be assessed as income from other sources. Even if the above receipts are assessed as income from other sources, deduction of expenditure incurred against such receipt ought to have been allowed by ld. CIT (A). Hence, the addition of Rs. 12,95,311/- confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is apparently incorrect and be directed to be deleted. It may also be noted that the receipt of assessee is only Rs. 14,81,570/- and, therefore, taking such receipt on the basis of Form 26AS at Rs. 30,33,776/- and making addition of Rs. 1,26,459/- by applying rate of 8.16% on the difference is incorrect and, therefore, the addition confirmed to this extent by ld. CIT (A) be deleted. In view of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings so recorded by the ld. CIT (A) except submitting the arguments as mentioned in his written submissions. 6.2 Now as far as addition of Rs. 12,95,311/- is concerned, in this regard the facts are undisputed to the extent that the assessee has not shown the receipt of Rs. 12,95,311/- on which TDS under section 194H has been deducted. Since assessee himself submitted that it is engaged in the activities of transportation which includes commission. Although the ld. A/R has stressed upon the fact that the amount paid to the assessee is reimbursement of freight charges paid by it, but in this regard the ld. A/R has not been able to substantiate his arguments. It is an undisputed fact that the payer companies had deducted TDS under section 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
