9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harge the onus cast on it by providing material evidence with respect to labour payments and material payments even before us, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO and therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Request of the assessee to estimate the income by rejecting the books of accounts rejected - HELD THAT:- The assessee being a Private Limited Company is necessarily subjected to Audit under Companies Act and was also covered by the provisions of section 44AB - AO has rightly not considered the request of the assessee to estimate the income by rejecting the books of accounts. Since the books of accounts have not been rejected and the income is not estimated by the Ld AO, and therefore the plea of the assessee that the additions made on account of labour creditors are liable to be deleted could not be accepted. Additions u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source - HELD THAT:- We find that it is not in dispute that the assessee is under obligation to deduct tax at source on various payments as envisaged in the Act. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the facts of the case, hence addition of Rs. 2,18,94,300/- towards material creditors and Labour creditors, is liable to be deleted in the hands Of the assessee company. 4. The CIT(A), is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO, as the assessee company has returned reasonable profit in the ROI, books of accounts of the assessee were rejected in the past asst. proceedings, assessee company has made a request to the AO to reject books of accounts and to adopt profit @ 8%, hence it is a no books of case, Ought to have allowed the appeal of the assessee keeping in view of the facts of the case, the parties mentioned to whom work on subcontract basis is mentioned were part of groups of Labourers, hence, TDS provisions do not apply, hence addition of Rs. 24,15,012/- u/sec. 40(a)(ia) is liable to be deleted in the hands of the assessee company. 5. Any other grounds those may be prayed at the time of hearing." 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee namely R.S. Pabbla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of executing contract work relating to construction of chimneys, overhead reservoirs, cooling towers, buildings and high rise structures of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion letters furnished by the assessee afresh may not be admitted as additional evidence. Ld.AR pleaded that AO neither insisted for submission of confirmation letters nor given any opportunity to produce them during the assessment proceedings, and therefore the assessee company was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not submitting the confirmation letters before the AO. On the other hand, the AO in his remand report has contended that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities and that the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of claim of credit liabilities towards labour. The AO in his remand report has elaborately referred to the opportunities afforded and the non-compliance of the assessee. The AO has also pointed out that the assessee failed to produce the original records, the ledger extracts, the muster rolls etc. 7. Considering the submissions made by the AR and the remand report of the AO, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 1,61,61,069/- for the A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 6,98,71,035/- for the A.Y. 2014-15. The ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance u/sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs. 24,15,012/- for the A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand report dated 15/12/2016. It is also found from the remand report of the Ld. AO that the assessee has produced confirmation letters from Eight Labour Groups out of the 17 Labour Groups. The Ld. AO in his remand report also stated that these confirmation letters provided before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence are similar to the one given before the Ld. AO and hence requested the Ld. CIT(A) to reject the admission of the additional evidence. Further, we also find that there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to submit the additional evidence before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO has provided various opportunities to the assessee as detailed in the assessment order. As the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast on it by providing material evidence with respect to labour payments and material payments even before us, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO and therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 11. Further, with respect to Grounds No. 3 and 4, we find that the Ld. AO has not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO, as the assessee company has returned reasonable profit in the ROI, books of accounts of the assessee were rejected in the past asst. proceedings, assessee company has made a request to the AO to reject books of accounts and to adopt profit @8% hence it is a no books of case, ought to have allowed the appeal of the assessee keeping in view of the facts of the case, hence addition of Rs. 6,98,71,035/- towards material creditors and Labour creditors, is liable to be deleted in the hands Of the assessee company. 4. The CIT(A), is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO, as the assessee company has returned reasonable profit in the ROI, books of accounts of the assessee were rejected in the past asst. proceedings, assessee company has made a request to the AO to reject books of accounts and to adopt profit @ 8%, hence it is a no books of case, ought to have allowed the appeal of the assessee keeping in view of the facts of the case, the parties mentioned to whom work on subcontract basis is mentioned were part of groups of Labourers, hence, TDS provisions do not apply, hence addition of Rs. 94,77,602/- u/sec. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
