9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee did not chose to cross examine Sri Nagendra. Hence, assessee cannot be heard to contend that the order of the assessing Officer smacks of violation of principles of natural justice when the onus of proof is upon the assessee with regard to expenditure incurred and on failure to prove the same, the expenditure could not be allowed as has been done rightly so by the assessing Officer in the instant case. The payments which the assessee claims to have paid to these three persons relates to granite extraction charges. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that for extraction of granite apart from manual labour, equipments and machineries would be used by the labour contractors and the payments are made on weekly basis to the manual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and dismissed the appeal. Assessee pursued his grievance before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru 'C' Bench and the Tribunal on re-appreciation of entire facts and perusal of the records was of the view that the order passed by the first appellate authority did not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference and as such by order dated 11.07.2014 allowed the appeal in part (on other issues). 3. Being aggrieved by the disallowance of the expenditure of ₹ 28,40,160/-, the assessee has filed this appeal contending interalia that the payments made to three persons was by way of cross cheques and taxes have also been deducted at source when payments were made to them and as such, the assessing Officer coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, it would clearly indicate that the assessee had debited ₹ 28,40,160/- as 'granite raising expenses' which was said to have been incurred towards extraction of granite and claimed that said amount was paid to three persons namely, Sriyuths Sundarraj, Basavaraj and Nagendra in a sum of ₹ 9,15,100/-, ₹ 9,75,800/- and ₹ 9,49,260/- respectively. Hence, assessing Officer has called upon the assessee to produce proof in support of the claim of expenditure and also to furnish the postal address of these three persons in order to verify the genuineness of the statement. During the course of assessment proceedings, statement of the assessee was recorded under Section 131 of the Act. Though summons under Section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence was produced by the assessee for verification by the assessing Officer and as such, the assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the liability created by the assessee is not genuine and has not been created in the normal course of business. 8. The CIT(A), on re-appreciation of material evidence, has also found that one of the recipients of the money from the assessee was Sri Basavaraj who is none other than the brother of the assessee. There was no impediment for the assessee to secure his presence and Sri Sundarraj to whom the assessee also claims to have made payment towards granite extraction charges is none other than the partner of Sri Basavaraj. During the pendency of appeal proceedings, the first appellate authority d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case. 10. The payments which the assessee claims to have paid to these three persons relates to granite extraction charges. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that for extraction of granite apart from manual labour, equipments and machineries would be used by the labour contractors and the payments are made on weekly basis to the manual labourers. In the instant case, it has been rightly noticed by the assessing Officer that the payments have been made after a year which would be an additional factor to doubt the transaction. Hence, the burden cast on the assessee to prove the expenditure incurred was genuine, has not been discharged. 11. For the reasons aforestated, we find the findings recorded by the assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
