2015 (9) TMI 135 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed turnover difference in Gross Receipts - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report, restricted the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,68,951/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO admittedly not called for the veracity of the letter of M/s. Ankur Textiles, however, on the basis of conjectures & surmises, submitted the remand report. Therefore, the Revenue has also not placed any contrary material suggesting that the letter of M/s. Ankur Textiles is fake and over the contents of the same are contrary to the material available on record. In the absence of such finding by the AO, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance on account of bogus labour payments - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The AO had made disallowance of labour payments on the basis of estimation to the extent of 20% of the expenditure. The AO has not given any basis on which he has based his finding to disallow at 20% of the expenditure on estimate basis. In our considered view, if the payment is bogus, it would be 100%. The ld.CIT(A) has given his finding on the fact that the PAN furnished during the appellate proceedings was found to be correct. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) since the Revenue has not placed any contrary material on record - Decided against revenue. Admission of additional evidences in violation of Rules 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 - Held that - AO has noted that assessee furnished some contra entries. Therefore, it is not the case where the assessee had not taken a stand before the AO and relied upon the evidences. Under these facts, we do not see any merit into the ground raised by the Revenue and the same is rejected. -Decided against revenue. Rejection of Books of Account - Held that - CIT(A) has not decided the ground while passing appellate order. The ld.CIT(A) has held that the ground would be covered in subsequent grounds while deciding the merits of the addition because of the appellant stated that the book results were rejected. Under these facts, we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have given a speaking order. Addition of alleged bogus labour payments - Held that - The contention of the assessee is that the accounts are fully audited, bills/vouchers are certified by the site engineers/supervisor. Merely because the lavourers were not having PANs cannot be the reason for making disallowance. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the ground is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) to pass a specific finding on the submissions made by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Adhoc disallowance of machine repair expenses and supervision charges - Held that - The authorities below have disallowed the expenditure on the basis that vouchers are self-made and unverifiable. However, there is no finding from both the authorities as to what efforts were made for verifying the same and whether the payments made to the persons were called for examination is not clear from the order. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to delete both the disallowances. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition on account of undisclosed turnover difference in Gross Receipts.
2. Deletion of disallowances on account of bogus labour payments.
3. Admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.
4. Rejection of Books of Account.
5. Adhoc disallowances out of Machine Repairs and Supervision charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Addition on Account of Undisclosed Turnover Difference in Gross Receipts:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 9,68,951 and granting relief of Rs. 27,43,711 on account of undisclosed turnover difference in gross receipts. The CIT(A) found that the discrepancy was due to contra entries passed by M/s. Ankur Textiles, which was supported by a certificate from Ankur Textiles. The AO did not verify the veracity of this certificate and based their remand report on conjectures. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not provide contrary material to suggest the certificate was fake.

2. Deletion of Disallowances on Account of Bogus Labour Payments:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,52,560 made by the AO on account of bogus labour payments. The CIT(A) found that the AO disallowed 20% of the labour payments based on one incorrect PAN and that the PAN furnished during the appellate proceedings was correct. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO's estimation lacked a basis and that if payments were bogus, the disallowance should be 100%. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, leading to the rejection of this ground.

3. Admission of Additional Evidences in Violation of Rule 46A:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the AO was aware of the contra entries and that the assessee had taken a stand before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention and rejected this ground.

4. Rejection of Books of Account:
The assessee challenged the rejection of its audited books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on this ground, deciding instead to address it within the context of other grounds. The Tribunal restored this ground to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with a speaking order.

5. Adhoc Disallowances out of Machine Repairs and Supervision Charges:
The assessee contested the adhoc disallowances of Rs. 5,000 out of machine repair expenses and Rs. 20,000 out of supervision charges. The Tribunal found that the authorities below disallowed these expenses based on unverifiable self-made vouchers without making efforts to verify the payments. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete both disallowances, allowing these grounds in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh decision on the rejection of books of accounts and directing the AO to delete the adhoc disallowances.