9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the provision of s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also infringes the Instruction No. 241/23/70 dated 23-10- 1970 issued by the' Central Board of Direct Taxes in this respect and., such action on that behalf is ab initio void, ultra vires and ex-facie null in law. 2. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jalpaiguri acted unlawfully in upholding the alleged disallowance resorted to by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Raiganj in the sum of ₹ 1,01,754/- in respect of expenses claimed under "Labour Charges" on the specious ground "to curb the possibility of revenue leakage" without adducing any adverse evidence on record and his purported action on that behalf is altogether arbitrary, unwarranted and perverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the settled legal position. Reliance was placed upon the paper book containing submissions advanced before the CIT(A); copy of ledger account of labour charges and copy of labour attendance and wages register (pages 9 to 57 of the paper book). Copy of ledger account of office expenses (pages 58 to 60 of the paper book) etc. so as to contend that no discrepancy was pointed out by the AO which the assessee was required to explain as such the additions it was argued deserves to be deleted. 3. The ld. Sr.DR, Shri D.J. Mehta, in regard to the first ground, stated that no doubt the order was passed beyond 14 days, however, Instruction No.241/23/70 does not make the actions of the AO bad in law. Referring to ground nos.2 and 3, the ld. Sr.D.R. p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained the Attendance Register of labourers shown the ledger account of labour charges and office expenses, which were all duly produced before the AO and also placed before us which contained the details of wages paid to and accepted by the labourers, no defect in the same has been pointed by the revenue. The action to make the ad hoc disallowance @5% qua the same and 10% in the case of office expenses on the reasoning that "to curb the possibility of revenue leakage" and "seems excessive" respectively is arbitrary which cannot be supported in law. Hence, addition so made of these disallowances by the AO, which has been upheld by the CIT(A), cannot be sustained. Accordingly, ground nos. 2 and 3 are allowed. In regard to ground no.1, which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
