2017 (12) TMI 907 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of labour charges as bogus expenses - genuineness of the payment - Held that - As the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the liability to deduct TDS was on the principal of M/s Nilkanth Ferro Ltd. and the assessee was merely a sub-contractor and, therefore, do not require to observe the provisions of ESI and PF and TDS, we agree on this principle but we have observed that assessee has not proved the genuineness of the payment either before the AO or before the ld CIT(A). Apart from this, it is not an ad hoc disallowance made by the AO therefore the arguments of the ld counsel that without rejecting books of accounts, the AO cannot make addition, is not tenable. That is, there is no need to reject the books of account. The overtime register was not authenticated by M/s Nilkanth Ferro Ltd. The director of M/s Nilkanth Ferro Ltd has stated that no overtime wages was paid. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), is justified. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal
- Addition on account of labour charges as bogus expenses
- Disallowance of labour charges
- Presumption of non-compliance with Employees State Insurance provisions
- Net profit ratio presumption
- Liability to deduct TDS
- Justification of addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A)

The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Kolkata, addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, noting that the appeal was time-barred by 11 days. The Assessee provided reasons for the delay, which were found satisfactory, leading to the Tribunal condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for hearing on merit.

Regarding the addition on account of labour charges as bogus expenses, the Assessee, a labour contractor, had filed its return of income declaring gross total income. The Assessing Officer, during scrutiny, made an addition for labour charges as bogus expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing lack of adequate evidence to support overtime wages payments and absence of confirmation of labour payments, ultimately upholding the addition.

The Tribunal deliberated on the disallowance of labour charges, where the Assessee contended that the disallowance was unjustified as the liability to deduct TDS rested with the principal company. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the payments and did not authenticate the overtime register. Despite the argument that the disallowance should not be made without rejecting the books of accounts, the Tribunal upheld the addition, deeming it justified based on the lack of evidence provided.

In the context of the presumption of non-compliance with Employees State Insurance provisions and the net profit ratio presumption, the Tribunal determined that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was valid. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof regarding the extra working hours claimed by the Assessee, as contradicted by the company that engaged the Assessee's services.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was justified based on the lack of substantiating evidence provided by the Assessee. The decision was pronounced in open court on 26/07/2017.