2014 (12) TMI 133 - AT - Income Tax

Various additions made - AO disallowed various amounts only of sub-contracts given by assessee and in some cases monies seems to have deposited or advanced to the Directors of the assessee company Held that - There is no objection for estimation of income by the Revenue Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have excluded the amounts on which there is clinching evidence against the assessee regarding non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure - Neither the A.O. nor the Addl. CIT(A) in the remand report indicated or quantified the amounts on which there was clinching evidence against the assessee - revenue could not point out any of those clinching evidences which are to be excluded from the turnover or to be brought to tax separately - In the absence of any quantification of the amounts either by the AO or by the Addl. CIT in their reports or before the tribunal by any particular means - CIT(A) seems to have examined all the issues, accepted part of the findings of the AO that the sub-contracts are only name sake - as both the authorities of Revenue accepted the estimation of income and as CIT(A) resorted to estimation based on the norms already been formed in this regard i.e., estimation of income at 12.5% on the main contracts and 8% on sub-contracts undertaken, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) the order of the CIT(A) is upheld - since Revenue has not questioned the estimation at the rates and since no evidence has been filed to establish the clinching evidence of non-execution of contract work or unexplained expenditure, the grounds raised by the Revenue do not require any consideration on merits Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) converted into estimation of income by the CIT(A).
2. Jurisdiction issue raised by the assessee regarding the fresh assessment order.
3. Disallowance of sub-contract expenditure by the A.O.
4. Estimation of income by the CIT(A) after rejecting the books of accounts.
5. Statutory disallowances under sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B.
6. Revenue's contention on exclusion of amounts with clinching evidence of non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Additions Made by the A.O. Converted into Estimation of Income by the CIT(A):
The Revenue appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, where the A.O.'s additions were converted into an estimation of income. The CIT(A) rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income at 12.5% on direct contracts and 8% on sub-contracts. The CIT(A) partly confirmed and partly deleted the A.O.'s observations regarding sub-contracts, leading to an estimation of income instead of outright disallowance.

2. Jurisdiction Issue Raised by the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining a fresh assessment order after the assessment proceedings concluded by virtue of approval of Addl. CIT under section 153D. However, this issue was not pressed during the arguments as there was no evidence on record that the original draft orders were approved by the Addl. CIT.

3. Disallowance of Sub-Contract Expenditure by the A.O.:
The A.O. disallowed various amounts related to sub-contracts given by the assessee, considering them bogus and aimed at reducing taxable income. The disallowance was based on the non-traceability of sub-contractors, unverifiable nature of expenditure, and lack of details. The CIT(A) found that the A.O.'s disallowance was based on presumptions and suspicion without clinching evidence of non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure.

4. Estimation of Income by the CIT(A) After Rejecting the Books of Accounts:
The CIT(A) rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income at 12.5% on direct contracts and 8% on sub-contracts, considering the nature of the business and judicial precedents. The CIT(A) concluded that the disallowance of entire sub-contract expenditure was not justified as the receipts from the contracts were accepted by the A.O. and no suppression of receipts was found.

5. Statutory Disallowances Under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B:
The CIT(A) adjusted some of the statutory disallowances made by the A.O. under sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B while estimating the income. The estimation of income was considered to take care of the statutory disallowances and deductions.

6. Revenue's Contention on Exclusion of Amounts with Clinching Evidence of Non-Execution of Work or Unexplained Expenditure:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have excluded amounts with clinching evidence of non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure while estimating the income. However, neither the A.O. nor the Addl. CIT quantified such amounts. The CIT(A) found no clinching evidence against the assessee regarding non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure and thus did not exclude any amounts from the estimation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order of estimating the income at 12.5% on direct contracts and 8% on sub-contracts, rejecting the Revenue's grounds as they did not provide quantifiable evidence of non-execution of work or unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as withdrawn. The appeals of the Revenue and cross-objections of the assessee were dismissed.