9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised served as receipts also and even if they did, they did not bear any Revenue stamp to evidence receipt of money by the contractor. Further the inquiry by the department at the address of the contractor mentioned in the bills drew a blank since the postal authorities remarked that the address was incomplete and despite the assessee being specifically asked to give complete details/address of the contractor, no information was provided by the assessee. The certificate furnished by the assessee, of the father of the contractor stating that he had been engaged in the activity of contract and had left for England in 2011, since not duly verified, we hold, serves no purpose. We therefore agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that merely making entries in the books of accounts and producing bills which are deficient in providing basic information regarding the transaction, is not sufficient for discharge of initial burden of proof on the assessee. Undoubtedly the assessee failed on all counts and parameters to establish the genuineness of its claim. - Decided against assessee - ITA No.337/Chd/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2019 - Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submissions were filed in writing before him, which are reproduced at para 4 of the order, wherein, briefly stated, the assessee contended that the improvement to the shop was made through a local contractor at settled rate. That the contractor used his own material and raised invoice on the basis of improvement of work completed. That the payment was made by the assessee after verification and the same were duly recorded in his books. Therefore, the invoices were sufficient evidence of the work done. The Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the assessee s submissions to the AO for his comments .The same are reproduced at para 4.1 of the CIT(A) s order, wherein the AO stated that nothing new has been stated by the assessee in his submissions. He further stated that a letter had been sent to the contractor to produce his income tax return, the copy of account of the assessee maintained by him and the original cash receipts issued by him to the assessee, but the same could not be served on the contractor being returned by the postal authorities with the remarks incomplete address . The AO further noted that the assessee had been asked to give complete address of the contractor, but no response had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upinder Singhcontractor of Village Sanour. ... and came o know that Shri Bhupinder payments were duly recorded in the books of account, maintained by the appellant had neither purchased those materials at his end nor there was any such arrangement requiring the contractor to supply the bills of those materials amounts were payable to the contractor at a settled per sq. foot rate only. It is not the case of Ld. Officer that the improvement in the Shop had not been made during the period Ld. Officer holds that the appellant had failed to deduct at source against such payments. Such an observation can be made only after perusing the details and related documents, The Invoices raised by the Contractor, bear name and address of the contractor, the date, the exact measurement of wood work and interior work done and the resultant amount payable to him and are duly signed by the contractor, Bhupinder Singh. Invoices have been raised by the contractor and not by the appellant. Copies of these invoices are being filed. to Sh. Charanjit Singh. But the letter could not be served upon Sh. Bhupinder Singh as the same has been returne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 45,000.00 Sd/- Bhupinder Singh(Pro.) Labour Contractor I have carefully examined the submissions of the Ld. AR and the finding and counter comments of the Ld AO and contextualized these to the facts of the case That normal business practice of raising such bills by labour/ construction contractors are distinct/different from the bills shown in this case in that they lack clarity with regards to being invoices or cash receipts, lack revenue stamps, do not give any detailed description of the work done is apparent from the discussion supra. However that the Ld. AO did not make any enquiries with regards to the existence of the contractor and His accounting of the receipts during assessment proceedings is also matter of record. While there is some merit in the appellant's submission that 8 years have elapsed since the so called work was done; in the first instance the expenses were made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year and the initial burden of proof to establish the improvements was on the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
