THAKUR VAIDYANATH AIYAR & CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 05.07.2018.

We find that the difference of Rs.5,61,500/- is due to the fact that the service tax is paid at Delhi but the fee is credited to other branches where service taxes not paid. Such amount pertain to Mumbai Branch for Rs.3,24,500/-, Kolkata Branch for Rs.1,87,000/- and KN Gupta partner for Rs.50,000/-. Though, the sum of Rs.50,000/- is the amount received from NASSCOM for the partner KN Gupta which was included in the turnover of 2 Thakur Vaidyanath Aiya & Co. Delhi office. Hence, owing to the reconciliation no addition is called for on this account.

From the record, we find that the TDS has been deposited before due date of filing of the return. Hence, keeping in view, the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in 1266, 1267, 1383, 1384 & 1392/Del/2021 dated 28.02.2022, we allow the appeal of the assessee on this ground.

The items of sundry creditors found to be having overlapping of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as found out from the table mentioned at page no. 21 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which includes TDS, salary TDS, Voluntary PF, and others include Staff balance & payables at Chennai Branch. These amounts are reconciled before us and also do not interfere with the cash system of accounting followed by the assessee. Hence, we allow the appeal of the assessee on this ground.

The AO resorted to adhoc disallowances on travelling, postage, conveyance and general expenses. We find that no reasons have been given by the revenue authorities for such disallowance and hence keeping in view the order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ITAT for the A.Y. 2013-14, we hereby delete the disallowance made by the AO.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/03/2022.