2019 (4) TMI 1242 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance to the extent of 25% out of labour charges and off loading expenses - HELD THAT - It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of materials on record. CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurrently held that there was sufficient evidence to enable the AO to make the disallowance, the only question being of quantification thereof. In absence of such findings being perverse, no question of law would arise. Assessee however submitted that the Assessing Officer could not have relied upon the statements of the contractors without providing cross-examination to the Assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessee had asked for such cross- examination which the Assessing Officer disallowed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Assessee. Questions presented for consideration:
(a) Justification of upholding disallowance of 25% out of labour charges and off-loading expenses.
(b) Justification of not appreciating the power to enforce attendance of contractors.
(c) Failure to appreciate that a statement could not be held against the Appellant.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, a public limited company, challenged the Assessment Year 2010-2011 Income Tax assessment by the Assessing Officer. Notices were issued under Section 133(6) to suppliers for verification. The Assessing Officer, after inquiries, disallowed substantial amounts, adding ?20.72 Crores.

2. The CIT(A) restricted additions to 25%, and the Tribunal deleted the disallowance related to purchases but upheld a portion of labour charges disallowance. The Tribunal found discrepancies in labour charges and off-loading expenses, justifying the disallowance of 25% of expenses.

3. The Tribunal observed that the Assessee outsourced labour from small contractors, but only two out of 14 contractors appeared. The Assessing Officer relied on a contractor's statement indicating discrepancies, leading to the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld 25% disallowance on labour charges and off-loading expenses.

4. The issue revolved around the appreciation of evidence on record. Both the CIT(A) and Tribunal agreed on the sufficiency of evidence for disallowance, focusing on quantification. The absence of perverse findings negated the existence of a legal question. The Assessee argued against reliance on contractors' statements without cross-examination, but no record indicated a request for cross-examination.

5. The judgment concluded that no legal question arose, dismissing the Income Tax Appeal. The decision was based on the appreciation of evidence, with no indication of procedural irregularities. The Tribunal's decision on the disallowance of expenses was upheld, emphasizing the importance of evidence in tax assessments.