Court upholds disallowance of granite raising expenses in assessment year 2008-09 due to lack of evidence

The court affirmed the assessing officer's decision to disallow expenditure of Rs. 28,40,160 for "granite raising expenses" in the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenses, including lack of proof of payments to creditors and discrepancies in details, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court found the assessing officer's assessment to be factual and upheld the Tribunal's decision without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Disallowed expenditure of Rs. 28,40,160 for "granite raising expenses" in the assessment year 2008-09.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a return of income declaring Rs. 4,26,160 besides agricultural income. The assessing officer disallowed the claimed expenses of Rs. 28,40,160 for "granite raising expenses" as unproved liability, bringing it to tax. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. The appellant contended that payments were made via cross cheques with taxes deducted at source, challenging the disallowance. The assessing officer relied on a statement without allowing cross-examination, leading to erroneous assessment upheld by appellate authorities.

The appellant argued that granite production and sales details were undisputed, implying genuine expenses. The respondent supported the authorities' orders, deeming them factual without legal infirmity. The appellant debited the amount to three persons for granite extraction but failed to provide sufficient proof. Only one creditor appeared, denying any transaction with the appellant, raising doubts on the liability's genuineness.

The assessing officer concluded the liability was not genuine due to lack of evidence. The CIT (A) noted the relationship between the appellant and one recipient, directing further evidence submission, which was not done. The Tribunal upheld the onus on the appellant to prove business expenses, finding the appellant failed to do so. The delay in payments and lack of evidence raised suspicion on the transaction's veracity.

The court affirmed the assessing officer's findings, supported by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, as factual and non-perversive. The appellant's failure to discharge the burden of proof led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's order without costs.

---