Addition under Section 68 and ad hoc labour charge disallowance: earlier-year credits cannot be taxed in a later year; 10% disallowance upheld

Where a sum is credited in books of a prior year without proper explanation, that credit cannot be taxed as income of a later previous year; the expression previous year must be read as the year relevant to the assessment year, so taxing an earlier-year credit in a subsequent assessment year is impermissible, favouring the assessee. Separately, an ad hoc 10% disallowance of labour cash payments was upheld: concurrent factual findings by assessing and appellate authorities and the tribunal showed opportunity to explain and a business-judgment based, non-perverse exercise of discretion, resulting in disallowance upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the additions made of old outstanding sundry credit balances under Section 68 of the Income Tax ActRs.
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the allowance made of labor charges on an adhoc basisRs.
3. Whether the ITAT had any material to confirm the adhoc disallowance of labor charges on an assumption that the same are not genuineRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant argued that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act mandates that if any sum is credited in the books of the assessee without proper explanation, it may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year. The court referred to the definition of "previous year" and the provisions of Section 68, emphasizing that the sum credited must be for that specific previous year. Citing relevant case laws, the court held that the sum credited for a different financial year cannot be taxed for another assessment year. Consequently, the first substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2 and 3:
Regarding the adhoc disallowance of labor charges, the appellant contended that the disallowance was based on suspicion without substantial evidence. The court noted that the Assessing Officer provided an opportunity for explanation and made the disallowance based on the preceding year's unchallenged disallowance. Referring to legal precedents, the court held that disallowance should not rest on mere suspicion and must consider commercial expediency from the viewpoint of the businessman. As all authorities followed established principles and there was no unreasonableness in the decision, the second and third substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant and in favor of the respondent.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to make necessary modifications within a reasonable period. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---