9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated to have been made to departmental labour and from the details of various projects, where it has been incurred it is seen that the expenses have been incurred for 15 projects at various sites. The assessee has also placed sample copies of the vouchers in the paper book. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has noted that despite various opportunities granted to assessee, assessee has not placed necessary details to justify the payment. Considering the nature of work and the fact that the increasing of expenditure is not doubted by Revenue ends of justice shall be met if the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 20 lacs as against ₹ 47,22,572/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).Grounds of assessee partly allowed. - ITA No. 1285/PUN/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Shri Suhas P. Bora Respondent by : Shri Anil Chaware. ORDER Per Anil Chaturvedi, AM This appeal of the assessee is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) II, Pune dated 25.02.2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f parties. In case of material purchases, assessee could furnish the confirmation of only 9 parties from whom the aggregate purchases of ₹ 1.56 crores were made as against the total material purchases of ₹ 30 crores. AO therefore concluded that assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving the increase in expenses. He thereafter and after noting that the ratio of purchases of materials including labour to turnover had increased from 42.62% to 78.04% and in the absence of any cogent explanation, disallowed 10% of the total purchases (amounting to ₹ 3,06,63,538/-) and 20% of labour charges amounting to ₹ 1,68,48,239/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 3,06,63,538/- on account of material purchases but however upheld the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 63,25,473/- out of the total disallowance of ₹ 1,68,48,239/- of labour expenses by holding as under : 5.3 So far as the addition of ₹ 1,68,48,238/- on disallowance of labor charges is concerned, the disallowance was primarily due to the reason that the appellant was not able to furnish and provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nish the necessary detail so as to justify the payment made in cash by him. The reliance placed on the decision of the Pune ITAT in the case of Mukund J Dhariya Vs ACIT cited supra is not applicable to the present case in as much as the fact there in being on a much different footing than the present case. In that case the assessee was engaged in construction of earthen dams in remote parts of the State of Maharashtra where it was practically not possible to get vouchers from the laborers engaged in the site whereas, the assessee in the present case has not provided complete details of the cash payments made even during the remand proceedings which could have facilitated in getting the enquiries and verification done in the case and even the construction work carried out is not located in remote areas. Moreover the ITAT in that case relied upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Pragati Fashions and of Mumbai Bench in the case of Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd., wherein the assessee had furnished complete details of the expenditure incurred. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case, relied upon by the appellant had allowed the appeal based on above fact, however in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which are listed at page 70 and 71 of the paper book, he submitted that assessee had made aggregate payment of ₹ 23,32,911/- and the cash component was only to the extent of ₹ 2,99,682/- which was around just 30% of the total payments. He therefore submitted that considering the totality of facts, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it by giving the details of payments and therefore no disallowance be made. Ld.D.R. on the other hand supported the order of AO. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The dispute in the present case is with respect to disallowance of labour payments as the same have been paid in cash. It is an undisputed fact that in the nature of business in which assessee is engaged, the major portion of expenses is on account of labour payment. The details of cash payment which have been made by the assessee, as submitted on page 66 of the paper book is as under :- Sl.No. Particulars In Rs. 1 Department Labour 47,22,572 2 Payment of labour charges where PAN No. is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
