9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 15,52,560/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus labour payments. 3) The ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 27/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition on accou8nt of difference in gross receipts of Rs. 37,12,662/-, disallowance of labour payments of Rs. 11,50,254/- and Rs. 15,52,560/- respectively and disallowance of machine repair of Rs. 5,000/- and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO objected to the submission stating that the contra entries plea taken by the appellant is not proved. When this objection was made available to the appellant it furnished a certificate from Ankur Textiles dated 30.06.2011 in which Ankur Textiles confirmed that gross receipts of Rs. 1,80,14,905 were credited to the account of the appellant which included service tax and actual payments of Rs. 1,78,71,253 were made to the appellant. Ankur Textiles has also stated that contra entries were passed, which in the annexures enclosed with the letter of Ankur Textiles are reflected at Rs. 28,87,363. This letter is enclosed as Annexure-1 of this order. This letter was admitted as additional evidence and was sent to the AO for counter comments, however the AO in response stuck to his stand that the certificate now produced should not be accepted. After going through rival submissions it is seen that gross receipts credited to the appellant as per certificate of Ankur Textiles come to Rs. 1,80,14,905 whereas the appellant is showing Rs. 1,70,45,954, difference of Rs. 9,68,951 is not satisfactorily explained therefore the addition is retricted to Rs. 9,68,951 (Rs.1,80,14,905 - Rs. 1,70,45,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 5. Ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal is against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 15,52,560/- made by the AO on account of bogus labour payments. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He placed reliance on the order of the AO. 5.1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that all details in respect of labour payments were submitted before the authorities below. He submitted that the AO without considering the submissions of the assessee proceeded to make disallowance of the payments and adding the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that under these facts, there is no violation of Rules 46A. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the 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. 9. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are general in nature which require no independent adjudication. 10. As a result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 11. Now, we take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.2490/Ahd/2011, for AY 2008-09, wherein the following grounds have been raised:- 1. Rejection of Books of Account: 1.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the rejection of audited books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in absence of any fault with books of accounts or the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the accounts cannot be held to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked the fact that the appellant has already furnished the proofs of the expenses in the paperbook. PRAYER The Appellant respectfully prays that: 1. The books of accounts be accepted. 2. The addition of Rs. 968951/- as unaccounted work receipt of Ankur Textiles be deleted. 3. The addition of Rs. 1150254/- as bogus labour payments be deleted. 4. The adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5000/- out of Machine Repairs be deleted. 5. The adhoc disallowance of Rs. 20000/- out of Supervision Charges be deleted. 6. Such and further relief which the appellant is entitled as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 11.1. Ground No.1.1 & 1.2 of assessee's appeal are against in respect of rejection of books of accounts. We find that before the ld.CIT(A) following ground was raised by the assessee:- 1. LEGAL GROUNDS: 1.1. The learned A.O. erred in law and on facts in rejecting book result of the appellant without rejecting books of accounts as there is no single defect in the books of account. As a result the additions which have been made to the returned income must be held no nest in law. The book result therefore be accepted. 1.2 The learned A.O. erred in law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given specific discrepancy in paras-3.7.1 to 3.7.4 of his order. 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. The contentions made before the ld.CIT(A) were reiterated before this Tribunal as well. The gist of the contentions of the assessee are as under:- "Submissions: 3.1 With a view to verify the labour payments the learned A.O. called upon the appellant to furnish complete details of the labour payments which were examined with the Cash book, Bank book, Labour vouchers and Bank statements. 3.2 While examining the labour vouchers the learned A.O. observed that in some of the cases where payments are made by bearer cheques there is no PAN or address of the labourer. The learned A.O. therefore obtained photocopies of seven vouchers of labour payments (Five Labourers) and further obtained certified photo copies of cheques for these payments from Indian Bank, Navrangpura and matched the signature on the vouchers with the signatures on the cheques and called for the axplanation of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15858 Gross payment 1364825 Kindly refer page nos. 90 to 94. Annexure-4 Correct Total 1122579 Payment with PAN 3025 Payment through a/c. payee cheques 655557 Payment though bearer cheques 447442 Payment through self cheques 16555 1122579 Kindly refer page nos. 98 to 101. 3.7 The appellant respectfully submits that there are no evidences to show that the payments to labourers having no PAN number are bogus. Nothing was brought on record to show that any part of the amount given by the appellant to such laborers came back to appellant in any form. There is no material on record to show that the labour payments are bogus and not properly accounted. Addition thus made on conjectures and surmises and hence can not be sustained. The learned A.O. has not been able to pin point any piece of evidence which could lead to the conclusion that the payments are bogus. 3.8 The Id. A.O. failed to notice following vital facts: (a) That all the labour payments are fully supported by the bills certified by the site engineer / supervisor showing foil particulars of work done by the labourer and the rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling to Rs. 11,50,254 have not been disputed by the appellant, though it was stated that all payments were genuine but the objections of the AO summarized above could not be answered even during the appellate proceedings. The above three persons were paid by bearer cheques drawn by someone else which amount to cash payment only. Dilipbhai has been informed paid cash payments totalling above Rs. 50,000 and also Rs. 45,425 by account payee cheuqes, but then why should not the appellant be in a position to furnish the address of this person at least. Despite opportunities addresses of persons were not furnished to whom labour payments totalling to Rs. 11,50,254 (lists enclosed with the assessment order) had been made during the year on the pretext that labour keep changing. In this background the disallowance made by the AO of cash labour payments not proved out of Rs. 91,27,625 labour expenses claimed by the appellant is upheld." 14.2. From the above finding of the ld.CIT(A), it is evident that the ld.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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
