2015 (10) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of account - AO estimated the income at 12.5% of the gross bill based grounds as payments made to labourers are not verifiable and TDS not effected on transport payment - Held that - We find that the Assessing Officer himself confirmed the fact of producing proper bills and vouchers in a letter issued by him on 9.12.2011. Further, the names and addresses of the labourers from whom payment vouchers were obtained are available on record. However, the Department has taken a plea that the CIT(A) has given relief in this case without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer or without calling for any remand report. Since the assessee has proved that it has produced proper bills/ vouchers and the Assessing Officer has confirmed the availability of relevant names and addresses of the labourers vide his letter dated 16.12.2012, hence it is not necessary for the CIT(A) to ask for a remand report. We find that due to discrepancies found in the accounts, the Assessing Officer has estimated the income at 12.5% of the gross bills minus recoveries and rejected the books of account. Taking a consistent view, as in the decision of Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 528 - ITAT Hyderabad ) we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the labour payments. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of account by Assessing Officer and estimation of income at 12.5% of gross receipts.
2. Disallowance of expenditure claimed due to lack of verifiable vouchers for labour payments.
3. Relief granted by CIT(A) without giving opportunity to Assessing Officer.
4. Discrepancies found in accounts leading to estimation of income and rejection of books of account.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer and the estimation of income at 12.5% of the gross receipts due to non-verifiable expenditure. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account based on the lack of individual vouchers for labour payments, even though the assessee maintained a register with relevant details. The CIT(A) noted that maintaining individual vouchers could be more authentic but found no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A) directed to add 1% of labourer expenses to the returned income, considering the possibility of revenue leakage.

2. The issue of disallowance of expenditure claimed arose due to the Assessing Officer's insistence on verifiable vouchers for labour payments. The assessee provided details of weekly payments to labourers through 33 reliable individuals, with names and addresses mentioned on vouchers. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about the authenticity of these vouchers, leading to a dispute. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the labour payments, following a precedent decision.

3. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer or calling for a remand report, which was contested by the Department. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided necessary details and evidence to the Assessing Officer, making a remand report unnecessary. The Tribunal upheld the relief granted by the CIT(A) based on the evidence presented by the assessee.

4. The discrepancies found in the accounts led to the estimation of income at 12.5% of gross receipts and the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, considering the evidence provided by the assessee and the confirmation of relevant details by the Assessing Officer, directed to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the labour payments. The Tribunal followed a consistent approach with previous decisions to determine the appropriate disallowance percentage, ultimately partly allowing the Department's appeal.