2014 (8) TMI 490 - HC - Income Tax

Genuineness of payments payments made to job workers or employees/workers CIT (A) admitted the additional evidences - Held that - Till 16th December, 2010, the issue regarding disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not specifically raised or questioned - No specific noting in the order sheet raising the issue is brought to attention - CIT(A) has gone into the question and examined payment sheets, details of machinery etc. and has decided the question in favour of the assessee - the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not specifically raised and confronted to the assessee - Section 40(a)(ia) was not specifically mentioned in the order sheets - No specific reply and answer was sought CIT(A) after examining the remand report, admitted additional evidence and allowed the appeal of the assessee Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Assessment proceedings under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2008-09; Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for job work charges paid; Justification for not furnishing full details before the Assessing Officer; Genuine nature of payments made to job workers or employees/workers.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The court noted discrepancies in the assessment proceedings, particularly regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for job work charges paid. The order sheets revealed a lack of specific questioning or raising of the disallowance issue until a later stage in the proceedings, raising concerns about procedural fairness.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered additional evidence and concluded that the job work charges paid were legitimate payments to workers. The Commissioner accepted the explanation provided by the respondent-assessee for not furnishing complete details earlier, attributing it to the accountant's lack of understanding regarding the implications of Section 44(a)(ia) and TDS requirements. The Commissioner also addressed disallowance on professional charges and examined the TDS compliance for various payments made by the assessee.

3. The central issue revolved around the genuineness of the payments and whether they were made to job workers or employees/workers of the respondent-assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) delved into payment records, machinery details, and other relevant factors to determine the nature of the payments. The court highlighted the absence of specific mention of Section 40(a)(ia) in the order sheets, indicating a lack of direct engagement with the disallowance issue during the assessment process.

4. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the favorable decision made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering additional evidence and justifications presented by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed based on the factual findings and the conclusion that the payments in question were genuine and appropriately made to job workers, leading to the rejection of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).