Tribunal partially allows Revenue's appeal, affirming some CIT(A) findings & dismissing others for lack of evidence.

The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed some findings of the Ld. CIT(A) while restoring others to the AO's original findings. The Tribunal dismissed certain grounds of the Revenue's appeal based on lack of supporting evidence or proper verification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 92,19,029/- related to 40 creditors.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,36,994/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,36,994/- for stone expenses.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,20,066/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,36,994/- for labour expenses.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,05,455/- for sand expenses.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 76,978/- for hire charges and crane loader expenses.
6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,35,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 5,44,160/- for JCB (Hot Mix Plant) expenses.
7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- under Section 40A(3).
8. General grounds for appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 92,19,029/- Related to 40 Creditors:
The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper verification of all creditors. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to examine the remaining creditors, which was done, and the AO did not report any adverse findings on the genuineness of the expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the creditors were verified on a test-check basis, and the balance amount of Rs. 92,19,029/- was considered explained, except for Rs. 1,98,458/- which was treated as unexplained. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed this ground of the Revenue's appeal.

2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,36,994/- Out of Total Addition of Rs. 3,36,994/- for Stone Expenses:
The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) was self-contradictory in restricting the addition while acknowledging the absence of bills and vouchers. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, noting the lack of supporting bills and vouchers, and restored the AO's original finding, allowing this ground of the Revenue's appeal.

3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,20,066/- Out of Total Addition of Rs. 3,36,994/- for Labour Expenses:
The Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance on an ad hoc basis, which the Tribunal found unjustified given the absence of proper records. The Tribunal restored the AO’s finding, allowing this ground of the Revenue’s appeal.

4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,05,455/- for Sand Expenses:
The Ld. CIT(A) followed its reasoning from ground no. 2 to delete the addition. Since the Tribunal dismissed ground no. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal, it also dismissed this ground for the same reasoning.

5. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 76,978/- for Hire Charges and Crane Loader Expenses:
The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that the AO did not provide specific instances of disallowance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding and dismissed this ground of the Revenue’s appeal.

6. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,35,000/- Out of Total Addition of Rs. 5,44,160/- for JCB (Hot Mix Plant) Expenses:
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,09,160/- related to Sh. Zakir Hussain but deleted the balance Rs. 3,35,000/- due to lack of verification. The Tribunal upheld this finding, dismissing this ground of the Revenue’s appeal.

7. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- Under Section 40A(3):
The Ld. CIT(A) based its finding on a revised statement by Shri Satya Narayan Nagar, indicating no payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal found no contrary material from the Revenue and affirmed the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding, dismissing this ground of the Revenue’s appeal.

8. General Grounds for Appeal:
This ground was considered general in nature and required no separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal affirming some findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and restoring others to the AO's original findings. The detailed analysis ensures the preservation of legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment.

---