Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy
Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Subrata Chatterjee.…………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant Vill. Dhuluk P.O. Nabagram Burdwan- 713166 [PAN : ABJFS 9847 D] ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan…………………………………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances by: Shri V. Dasgupta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 2nd , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : August 24th , 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 22/12/2016, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.
The assessee is a partnership firm and is in the business of undertaking contract works.
After hearing rival contentions, a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 4. Ground No.1, is against the disallowance of Rs.31,300/- . The assessee states that the amount was paid to a local association and it was required to be paid for smooth conduct of business of the assessee. The revenue states that, whatsoever, the institution to which the amount has been given, is not registered u/s 80G of the Act, and hence no deduction can be granted to the assessee. I find that the assessee has not produced any receipt of having made this donation to the local club. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. I find no infirmity in this action of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 1, is dismissed.
2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Subrata Chatterjee 5. Ground No. 2, is against the addition of Rs.49,726/-, which is due to shortage of cheques in hand. No addition can be made on the ground that there is a shortage of cheques in hand, as it is similar to cash shortage with the assessee. Hence this addition is hereby deleted.
Ground No. 3, is against the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on the ground that the PAN details were not provided on the carriage expenditure incurred. The payment was made to M/s. National Roadline. The ld. CIT(A) found that a number of payments were made to M/s. National Roadline on one date i.e., 05/07/2007, totaling to Rs.25,000/- and no deduction of TDS was made. PAN details of M/s. National Roadline was also not provided. Hence, I find no infirmity in this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 3.
Ground No. 4, is against the additions of Rs.1,35,410/-, being cheque deposited on 31/03/2008. Withdrawal of Rs.28,293/- on 31/03/2008, was also added. Both these additions were made, as the assessee has considered entries in the bank account up to 29/02/2008 and the entries of 31/03/2008, was not taken into account. The assessee’s case is that he amount of Rs.1,35,410/- was already considered in the gross receipts and mere deposit of a cheque cannot become income of the assessee. This claim of the assessee needs verification.
Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether this cheque in question was considered in the gross receipts of the assessee. If so no separate addition shall be made. In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Ground No. 5, is on the addition of interest on fixed deposit. While the interest on fixed deposit has to be added, the contention of the assessee is that the interest that accrued and arose during the current Assessment Year only should be added, has force. Thus, this issue is also remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction
3 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Subrata Chatterjee that interest income for this Assessment Year, be calculated and brought to tax. Hence, this ground of the assessee is allowed in part. 9. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.