SRI DEBABRATA MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

2 Sri Debabrata Mukherjee

1. For that authorities below is not justified in confirming the disallowance Rs.56,500/- for accounting charges paid to part time accountant on monthly basis is being the occupation of the employee does not fall under provision of section 194J of the I.T.Act'1961 2. For that the authorities below is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,700/- paid to Sri Pranab Kumar Biswas for part time job on monthly basis for maintaining Excise matters does not fall under section 194J read with section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act'1961. 3. For that the impugned addition Rs. 87,200/- should have been quashed and vacated for the sake of natural justice and equity. 4. For that the appellant beg to reserve the right of adding to or modifying or altering any of the grounds of appeal referred to herein, if necessary at the time of hearing of this appeal.

but at the time of hearing the main grievance of the assessee has been confined to the addition of Rs.56,500/- for accounting charges paid to part time accountant and Rs.30,700/- paid to Sri Pranab Kumar Biswas for part time job. As per assessee these two small payments should not fall in the ambit of section 194J of the Act. Ground No. 3 is just repeating the ground No. 1 and 2. 5.1 The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee has submitted the details and explanation before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) in turn did not send these details and submissions for the examination of the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to obtain the remand

3. Sri Debabrata Mukherjee report from the AO, therefore, the issue is to be sent to the AO with the direction that the assessee should submit the entire details before the AO for his verification and the AO after giving an opportunity to the assessee should pass an appropriate order. 5.2. Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the orders of authorities below. 5.3. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee, as the proposition canvassed by ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the facts narrated by him above. As Ld. AR for the assessee has pointed out that the assessee submitted the details and explanation before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) in turn did not send these details and submissions for the examination of the AO. He further submitted that ld. CIT(A) failed to obtain the remand report from the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the issue to the file of AO with the direction that the assessee should submit the entire details before the AO for his verification and the AO after giving an opportunity to the assessee shall pass an appropriate order. 5.4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/02/2017. (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (DR. A.L.SAINI) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; "दनांक Dated 08/02/2017 "काश "म"ा/Prakash Mishra,Sr.PS.