2020 (9) TMI 315 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of sub-contract payments for land development expenses - accommodation entries for income and expenditure both - AO completed the assessment u/s. 144 and the amount of land development expenses was added to the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT - CIT(A) is unjustified in treating the entire contract receipt as a taxable income of the assessee without disproving the material fact that assessee was indulged in facilitating accommodation entries. Assessee has not carried out any development work for the PACL Ltd. and provided accommodation entries to PACL Ltd. and on similar basis accommodation entries were provided by the subcontractor to the assessee. The assessee has failed to furnish the description of the land and other details where the land development work was carried out and the sub-contractors have also admitted in their statements and the affidavits they have only provided accommodation entries. Assessee have not executed any work except providing accommodation entries, we consider that looking to the meager income shown by the assessee it will be reasonable to estimate the commission income earned by the assessee @ 4% of ₹ 1,02,04,082/- to the amount of ₹ 4,08,165/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of sub-contract payments for land development expenses
- Opportunity for cross-examination of sub-contractors
- Disallowance of expenses without sufficient opportunity
- Disallowance of entire sub-contractor payments as non-genuine
- Taxation of entire contract receipts as income
- Alternative plea for restricting addition to reasonable commission

Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Sub-contract Payments: The assessing officer added ?94,48,000 to the total income of the assessee due to lack of details regarding the land development expenses paid to sub-contractors. The appellate tribunal noted that the sub-contractors did not comply with notices, and the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence. The tribunal found that the sub-contractors admitted to providing accommodation entries only, not land development work. The tribunal estimated reasonable commission income at 4% of the total amount received.

2. Opportunity for Cross-Examination: The appellant contested the disallowance and lack of opportunity for cross-examining sub-contractors. However, the tribunal found that the sub-contractors' statements and affidavits revealed they provided accommodation entries, not actual development work. The tribunal considered the lack of evidence provided by the assessee and upheld the assessing officer's decision.

3. Taxation of Entire Contract Receipts: The appellant argued against taxing the entire contract receipt amount, proposing to estimate only reasonable commission income. The tribunal reviewed similar cases and judicial pronouncements, concluding that the entire amount paid to sub-contractors was not genuine. The tribunal upheld the addition to the total income but estimated reasonable commission income at 4% of the total receipt amount.

4. Alternative Plea for Restricting Addition: The appellant's alternative plea to restrict the addition to a reasonable commission income was rejected by the tribunal. The tribunal found the assessing officer's decision to treat the entire payment to sub-contractors as bogus was justified based on the lack of evidence and admission of providing accommodation entries. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by estimating commission income at 4% of the total receipt amount.

5. Conclusion: The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, estimating commission income at 4% of the total receipt amount and dismissing the remaining grounds of appeal not contested. The decision was based on the lack of evidence proving actual development work, leading to the estimation of reasonable commission income and partial allowance of the appeal.