2019 (9) TMI 1171 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of expenditure u/s 37(1) - Disallowance of withheld fine being in the nature of penalty / fine for violation / offence - Additions towards amount deposited with as unaccounted with certain organisations as income for the reason that these deposits did not reflect in the balance sheet - Additions towards excess consumption of raw material - AO disallowed 14% of such expenses as an excess claim . - the absence of production of primary supporting material, the Assessing Officer held that about 30% of the gross receipts could be the normal expenditure in the line of business and therefore he restricted the labour charges claim to 30% of the contract receipts - HELD THAT - Assessee has not made any attempt to produce any document / voucher / primary material either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A) or before this Tribunal in support of its contention. When there are no documents placed before us to create even a doubt on the impugned issues, the assessee s claim that the impugned issues should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer is not justified and hence it is not permitted. Since the assessee has not placed any primary material, it is not possible for us to appreciate as to whether the facts and circumstance dealt in the case laws are applicable to the assessee s case and hence the assessee s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of certain expenses by the Assessing Officer.
3. Lack of supporting evidence by the assessee.
4. Request for remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appellant's appeal was delayed by 5 days, attributed to the delay in obtaining the e-challan copy for Tribunal appeal fees. The appellant filed a condonation petition pleading the delay was bona fide. The Tribunal heard both sides and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of certain expenses by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee, including amounts debited as "withheld fine," deposits with Project Coordinator and TN Police Housing Corporation, and excess material consumption and labor charges. These disallowances resulted in a substantial addition to the assessee's returned income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowances due to the lack of supporting evidence presented by the assessee.

Issue 3: Lack of supporting evidence by the assessee
Throughout the proceedings, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documents, vouchers, or primary materials to substantiate their claims regarding the disputed expenses. This lack of evidence was noted by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A), and the Tribunal. The absence of any documentation hindered the assessee's case and ultimately led to the dismissal of their appeal.

Issue 4: Request for remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination
The appellant's representative requested the Tribunal to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, citing the need to decide the issues based on primary materials. However, the Tribunal found that since the assessee had not produced any evidence before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A), or the Tribunal, there was no basis to remit the case back for further examination. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of primary material and supporting evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to their failure to provide any supporting evidence throughout the proceedings. The lack of documentation and vouchers hindered the assessee's case, leading to the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal.