2014 (3) TMI 691 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 80IA of the Act Held that - The direction of the Tribunal was that if the AO find that the workers employed were more than 10 then directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA - The AO has not strictly adhered to those directions - merely casting doubt on handwriting which was properly confronted, the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.80IA for the year under consideration - the assessee has suo motu withdrawn the claim Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against disallowance u/s.80IA, rejection of claim based on number of employees, alteration in records, rejection of wages register, compliance with Tribunal's directions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance u/s.80IA. The Tribunal had directed the AO to verify the salary register to determine if the workers employed were more than 10. The AO rejected the claim based on discrepancies in the wages register, alleging alteration in records and employment of only four employees. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

2. The Tribunal noted that the books of account were not rejected by the AO. The AO did not disallow the labour wages expenditure on grounds of genuineness, raising questions on the justification for rejecting the claim u/s.80IA. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough scrutiny by the AO as per its directions. The Tribunal cited case laws supporting the assessee's position and highlighted the importance of adherence to its directions by the AO.

3. The Tribunal found that the AO did not strictly adhere to its directions to verify the salary register and other relevant documents. By considering the evidence presented, including worker details and vouchers, the Tribunal concluded that merely casting doubt on handwriting did not justify the rejection of the deduction claim u/s.80IA. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not impact previous years where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the claim, making the current year the final year for the deduction claim.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the disallowance of the deduction u/s.80IA for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following its directions and conducting a thorough examination before rejecting a claim, ensuring compliance and fairness in the assessment process.