Documentary proof of job work expenses prevails over third-party non-compliance when identity, banking trail and TDS are established.

Where an assessee substantiates job work expenditure with identity of payees, bank payments, TDS compliance, ledger records and the contractors' own returns, the claim cannot be rejected merely because third parties did not respond to notices or summons. The presence of documentary and circumstantial evidence showing business necessity and actual incurrence of expenditure outweighs non-compliance by contractors, absent any adverse material on record. On these facts, further inquiry after a long lapse of time would serve no useful purpose, and the disallowance of job work expenses was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disallowance of job work expenses was justified solely because the contractors did not respond to notices and summons issued under the Income-tax Act, despite documentary evidence showing the identity of the payees, payment through banking channels, deduction of tax at source, and reflection of the corresponding income in the contractors' returns.

Analysis: The assessee established the existence and business necessity of the expenditure through substantial direct and circumstantial material, including the identity and addresses of the contractors, ledger and bank records, TDS compliance, and the contractors' own income-tax returns. The processing activity commenced during the year, turnover increased, and substantial additions were made to fixed assets, supporting the claim that job work charges were incurred in the ordinary course of business. The mere non-compliance by third parties with notices under Section 133(6) and summons under Section 131 could not, by itself, outweigh the documentary evidence, particularly when no adverse material was brought on record. In the given factual setting, requiring further inquiry after a long lapse of time and after closure of business would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The disallowance of job work expenses was not justified and the addition was liable to be deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee substantiates expenditure with credible documentary and circumstantial evidence, third-party non-compliance with notices or summons, without more, is insufficient to reject the claim or sustain an adverse inference.

---