9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 4.00 lacs respectively.- Therefore, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the revenue that the finding of the tribunal in limiting the disallowance to ₹ 4.00 lacs has no basis at all and there is no evidence to back the same.- Decided in favor of revenue. Addition of Site Expenses - no supporting bills/vouchers - Held that:- All the authorities below recognized the fact that expenditure in respect of site expenses has to be allowed though not in toto. The disallowance by all the three authorities has been based on their respective estimates. Since the tribunal is the final fact finding authority, we have nothing before us to challenge the estimation of the tribunal by restricting the addition to ₹ 4.00 lacs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment year 2008-2009. ITA No. 02/2013 is in respect of ITA No. 102(Asr)/2012 which was an appeal filed by the assessee before the tribunal. ITA No. 03/2013 is in respect of ITA 127(Asr)/2012 which was an appeal preferred by the department before the tribunal. 2. On 03.07.2013, when the present appeals were admitted to hearing, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration of this Court:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- only out of ₹ 46,84,809/- with regard to material consumed when there was no supporting bills/vouchers? ii) Whether the findings of the Hon ble ITAT as regards the bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (ii). 6. We shall first take up question Nos. (i) and (ii). The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 46,84,809/- under the head of materials consumed in respect of sand, dust and bajri for which no supporting bills/vouchers were presented by the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that under the head materials consumed , the assessee had debited ₹ 16,32,99,362/-. It is further pertinent to note that the total expenditure on sand, dust and bajri was to the tune of ₹ 2,02,11,961/- as per the details submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. Out of this amount, there were no supporting bills/vouchers in respect of an amount of ₹ 46,84,809/- and to that extent, the Assessing Officer made a disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther indicated that payments made to various persons with regard to sand, dust and bajri were available with the Assessing Officer which had not been considered in the right spirit. The disallowance to the extent of 20% by CIT(A) was in the view of the tribunal excessive and the tribunal limited the same to ₹ 4.00 lacs which according to the tribunal appeared to be justified. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the finding of the tribunal is not supported by any material on record. As per the assessment order, it is evident that no supporting bills/vouchers etc., had been submitted in respect of sand, dust and bajri to the extent of ₹ 46,84,809/-. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Insofar as the question No. (iii)is concerned, the same relates to Site Expenses. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 17,55,312/- to the income of the assessee on account of alleged site expenses which were not supported by any bills/vouchers etc. It may be pointed out that the total amount claimed under the head site expenses was ₹ 87,76,558/- and that for this entire amount of ₹ 87,76,558/-, no bill or voucher had been submitted by way of supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer, however, did not disallow the entire amount, but, limited the disallowance to 20% which worked out to ₹ 17,55,312/- and the same was added back to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, that is, ₹ 8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to ₹ 4.00 lacs. In fact, we agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that this question is purely one of fact and is not a substantial question of law. Consequently, the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal would stand. Question No. (iv). 13. Now coming to the last question No. (iv) which relates to labour expenses. The Assessing Officer had added ₹ 24,11,260/- on account of alleged non-verifiable labour expenses made in cash. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition, however, the tribunal deleted the said addition. From the impugned order, it appears that the tribunal was impressed by the fact that the muster roll which had all the details of the labour and payments had been produced and there was no disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
