9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he returns of income in accordance with law. Nothing is brought on records to suggest that any disallowance is made in the hands of the sub-contractors and the assessments are complete wherein all sub-contracts are done as per the said contract agreements. Work contracts given to sub-contractors are complete in all respects and there is no compliant of any kind from the Municipal Corporations of Nashik and Tiruvananthaopuram. There is recording of statements u/s.131 of the Act by the AO and providing of cross examination of the parties involved. In all these proceedings, all the 4 sub-contractors confirmed rendering of services/execution of work contracts to the assessee and the same goes in faovur of the assessee's claim - Decided in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 2.42 crores, i.e. equivalent of 11.66%. Similarly, the Net Profit of ₹ 79,12,672/- works out to 3.8% of the contract receipts. Assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 79,23,710/-. In the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the payment of sub-contract expenses amounting to ₹ 4,17,19,272/- to various parties. Out of them, the payments made to Shri Sriniwas Muthe (Rs.38,65,840/-), D.P. Bhansali (Rs.37,84,430/-), M/s. Pushkar Buildcon (Rs.35,16,680/-) and M/s. R.C. Enterprises (Rs.38,90,180/-) totaling to ₹ 1,50,57,130/- was the subject matter of deep scrutiny by the AO. AO invoked the provisions of section 133(6) and 131 of the Act and also given cross examination of the parties before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 persons have failed to produce the evidence demanded by the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) affirmed the finding of the AO. Relevant operative lines are extracted as under : 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All the four persons have failed to produce the evidences demanded by the AO. Therefore, the A.O. is justified to conclude that the appellant's claim of sub-contract expenses of ₹ 1,50,57,130/- are unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 1,50,57,130/- is confirmed. 6. Aggrieved with the same the assessee is in appeal before us with the concised ground referred above. 7. Ld. Counsel for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that he has actually visited Trivendrum at work place. 5. He has not carried out any work personally. As per his statement, he has assigned his work to his friend Shri Mangesh Raut. 6. He is not having any documentary evidence to prove that he has actually carried out the work at Trivendrum through Mangesh Raut. 7. He is not having any evidence to show that he has actually engaged labours for the alleged work. 8. He is not having any evidence of any payment made to either to Shri Mangesh Raut or to the labours. 9. He has not given any details of Shri Mangesh Raut. He was not having any Mobile No. or an contact number of Shri Mangesh Raut. He has stated incomplete address of Mangesh Raut. 10. In the current assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing material is brought to the records on this by the AO. All the 4 sub-contractors are assessed to tax and filed the returns of income in accordance with law. Nothing is brought on records to suggest that any disallowance is made in the hands of the sub-contractors and the assessments are complete wherein all sub-contracts are done as per the said contract agreements. It is undisputed fact that the work contracts given to sub-contractors are complete in all respects and there is no compliant of any kind from the Municipal Corporations of Nashik and Tiruvananthaopuram. There is recording of statements u/s.131 of the Act by the AO and providing of cross examination of the parties involved. In all these proceedings, all the 4 sub-contractors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
