9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 262 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of Development Expenses - Genuineness of payments to sub contractors during second reassessment proceedings - HELD THAT - Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness, evidence of work done like valuation report, or any other details w.r.t. this claim and he further observed in the same para that since an amount is already added in the order dated 29.12.2009, only the balance amount is required to be disallowed further and he made the disallowance of ₹ 487,88,586/- in this second reassessment order dated 30.03.2013. Since, the impugned order of CIT (A) and the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the AO u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 254 are in line with the direction of the tribunal in para 12 of the said tribunal order dated 20.09.2013 in first round as per copy available we hold that no interference is called for in the order of CIT (A) dated 13.01.2020. Addition u/s 68 - consequent demand raised as per order u/s 154 - HELD THAT - CIT (A) observed that the assessee failed to submit any evidence in support of its contentions raised in grounds of appeal and no documentary evidence has been produced nor any evidence furnished to substantiate its claims. Before us also, no material is produced to show that the transaction in question is genuine although it is held by the AO that the same is not genuine. Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?4,87,88,586/- by the AO in reassessment. 2. Jurisdiction of AO to issue notice under Section 148 instead of Section 153C. 3. Addition of ?20,47,19,154/- under Section 68. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of ?4,87,88,586/- by the AO in reassessment The first appeal (ITA No. 212/Bang/2020) concerns the addition of ?4,87,88,586/- made by the AO in a fresh order as directed by the tribunal. The tribunal noted that in reassessment proceedings, the AO examined the parties whom the assessee claimed to be sundry creditors and accepted all except four as genuine. The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The AO, in the subsequent order, found that the genuineness of the sub-contractors had not been proved and disallowed the entire sub-contract payments. The CIT (A) upheld this finding, noting that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the payments. The tribunal held that since the AO and CIT (A) followed the tribunal's directions, no interference was called for in the CIT (A)'s order. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of AO to issue notice under Section 148 instead of Section 153C In the second appeal (ITA No. 589/Bang/2020), the assessee contended that the AO had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148, arguing that the notice should have been issued under Section 153C/153A since the material was found during a search at a third party's premises. The tribunal examined the provisions of Section 153C and found that it applies only if valuable articles or books of accounts/documents related to a person other than the searched person are found. The tribunal noted that no such materials were found in the present case, and hence, Section 153C could not be invoked. The tribunal rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that the AO had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148. Issue 3: Addition of ?20,47,19,154/- under Section 68 The main grounds of the second appeal (ITA No. 589/Bang/2020) involved the addition of ?20,47,19,154/- under Section 68. The AO found that the assessee debited ?25,35,07,740/- as development expenses paid to sub-contractors, most of which were paid in cash. The AO issued notices to the sub-contractors, but many did not respond or appear, and some admitted to being name lenders. Consequently, the AO disallowed the remaining amount of ?20,47,19,154/-. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, noting that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claims. The tribunal found that the assessee did not provide any material to prove the genuineness of the transactions and upheld the CIT (A)'s order, dismissing the appeal. Conclusion: Both appeals (ITA No. 212/Bang/2020 and ITA No. 589/Bang/2020) were dismissed. The tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A), finding no merit in the assessee's contentions and no interference warranted in the orders of the CIT (A).
|
