2016 (7) TMI 322 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of labour charges etc. paid in cash - according to the Assessing Officer, the bonafides of such expenses could not be proved by the assessee - summons were issued under section 131 - Held that - The impugned claim towards expenses is not substantiated by cogent evidence. When these factors are tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the claim appears unfounded. It is true that once the summons under section 131 of the Act has been served on the parties concerned, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee merely owing to non-compliance of the summons. However, in the instant case, the disallowance made is sustainable primarily on account of non-availability of documentary evidences on the part of the assessee and not for the reasons of non-appearance of the parties summoned. Therefore, case laws cited by the assessee are of no assistance to the assessee. Needless to say, the primary onus to establish the bonafides of the transactions always lies with the assessee, which has not been discharged in the instant case. In the totality of circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to disallowance of labor charges paid in cash.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of labor charges paid in cash. The Assessing Officer disallowed a total of &8377; 23,93,862 paid to five parties for labor charges. The assessee failed to provide details or substantiate the claim, and the parties were not produced for verification. The CIT(A) called for a remand report, and in the subsequent examination, only two out of five parties attended and failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claims. The Assessing Officer observed that the payments were made in cash without TDS deduction, casting doubt on their genuineness. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of documentary evidence establishing the genuineness of the expenses.

The appellant argued that ledger accounts of the parties authenticated by them supported the cash payments made over time. The appellant contended that since summonses were delivered to most parties, no adverse inference should be drawn due to non-compliance. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant failed to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the payments were made in cash without TDS deduction, and the appellant did not provide sufficient details about the services rendered. The pattern of multiple cash payments to the same parties raised suspicions, especially when exceeding the threshold limit under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The lack of proper documentation and invoices further weakened the appellant's case. Despite summoning the parties, the lack of credible evidence and non-compliance with statutory requirements led to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide cogent evidence supporting the labor charges claimed. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision, as the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the expenses. The lack of documentary evidence and non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding cash payments and TDS deduction led to the rejection of the appellant's claim.