2010 (12) TMI 811 - AT - Income Tax

Addition - undisclosed Bank a/c - the books of accounts were also audited hence the A. 0. could not had made any addition without pin pointing any defects/discrepancy and bogusness or non-genuine expenditure etc. in the books of accounts which he failed - No particular defects discrepancy bogusness or non-genuineness or any abnormalit under any head has been detected by A.O. in the audited books the registers and the vouchers Hence in these circumstances I am agreeable to AIR that the disallowance made under this head wa wholly unjustified - AO has disallowed very fair amount of 3% of the total expenditure in absence of proper details Regarding addition u/s 69 - assessee has claimed that the major deposits in the said bank account came out of M/s. Mondal Constructions the proprietorship concern of the assessee there is no evidence on record to support the above submission of the assessee - assessee has not filed any evidence in the shape of cash book of proprietorship concern showing that the impugned amount came out of assessee s proprietorship concern M/s. Mondal Constructions and the amounts were also returned back to the said concern subsequently - assessee has not given details of explanation filed by him before the AO with reference to his query on this account - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions on account of wages and salary expenses.
2. Deletion of additions under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
3. Deletion of additions on account of undisclosed bank account deposits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Additions on Account of Wages and Salary Expenses:
The revenue questioned the deletion of Rs. 3,74,785/- by the CIT(A), which was initially disallowed by the AO due to unverifiable expenditures on casual labor, labor without PF, and incentives to labor. The assessee, a labor contractor for FCI and SER, had significant expenditures debited under these heads. The AO found the wage sheets and registers submitted by the assessee either insufficient or unreliable. Consequently, the AO disallowed 3% of the total expenditures. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO did not bring any concrete material to justify the disallowance and that the expenditures were necessary and incidental to the business. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO failed to pinpoint any defects or discrepancies in the books of accounts, which were audited. The Tribunal partially agreed with the CIT(A), sustaining the AO's disallowance for the FCI contract but upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion for the SER contract.

2. Deletion of Additions under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:
The AO disallowed Rs. 11,37,455/- under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS on payments made to subcontractors. The assessee contended that the payments were for truck hire charges and labor charges, and the parties involved were not subcontractors. The CIT(A) accepted that only Rs. 1.50 lakh was paid to Mr. Partha Mondal for truck hire charges, not Rs. 6.40 lakh as mentioned by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance for the remaining amount, considering the payments as falling under the purview of Section 40(a)(ia) due to the existence of oral or written contracts. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and rejected the revenue's ground on this issue.

3. Deletion of Additions on Account of Undisclosed Bank Account Deposits:
The AO added Rs. 4,11,721/- as undisclosed income under Section 69, based on the peak credit in a savings bank account not disclosed in the assessee's balance sheet. The assessee argued that the amount was transferred from his proprietorship concern and subsequently returned. The CIT(A) found that the bank account was disclosed in the personal balance sheet and that the AO failed to verify the source of the peak credit. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to support the assessee's claim that the deposits came from the proprietorship concern. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's addition, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal, sustaining the AO's disallowance for FCI contract expenditures and reversing the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for undisclosed bank deposits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, except for the amount already sustained by the CIT(A).