2023 (10) TMI 1144 - HC - Income Tax

ITAT Confirms CIT(A)'s Reversal of Payment Disallowance Decision Due to Lack of Contrary Evidence from Revenue

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Versus M. Dinshaw And Co. Pvt. Ltd.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who overturned the Assessing Officer's ... Assessment u/s 158BC - addition in respect of ICS and TT on the ground that payments made to the two concerns were inflated and in the nature of accommodation bill - CIT(A) deleting the additions/disallowance, observed that there were several documents, letters and correspondences filed by assessee, which clearly showed that ICS and TT were carrying out Container Freight Services ('CFS') operations for assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has recorded a finding that factually the work was being carried out by ICS and TT and just because books of accounts of ICS and TT was not produced, would not give the AO a reason to believe that the payments made to the two concerns were inflated. CIT(A) has rightly observed that assessee is only expected to produce its own books of accounts and records and not to ensure production of books of account of every party, who has supplied goods or rendered services to assessee. That would amount to impossible burden being placed on assessee. ITAT has accepted this finding and has made pertinent observation that findings of CIT(A) based on material on record has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any positive material on record. Amounts paid to parties who did not appear before the AO and the bills were not supported by delivery challans - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that delivery challans and test certificates were infact available. It is also recorded that the employee and director of Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited had confirmed the transactions and the actual supply of material. So also the case of M/s. Sai Om Labour, assessee was accepted to have proved that the engagement of the labour contractor was essential considering the nature of the business carried on by it. This finding of CIT(A) was also acceptable to ITAT, who on facts have come to conclusions arrived at by CIT(A) were correct. Since on facts two appellate Authorities have expressed satisfaction based on the material and documents produced before them, we see no reason to interfere. No question of law arises. Issues involved:A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted, disallowance of payments made to certain entities, appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (A), dismissal of appeals by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, substantial questions of law raised by Revenue.Issue 1 - Disallowance of payments to M/s. Intercontinental Shipping and M/s. Timmy's Transport:The Assessing Officer disallowed payments made to M/s. Intercontinental Shipping (ICS) and M/s. Timmy's Transport (TT) alleging inflated and accommodation bills. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) deleted the disallowance, stating that there were documents showing that ICS and TT were providing Container Freight Services to the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the work was indeed being carried out by ICS and TT, and the absence of their books of accounts does not automatically imply inflated payments. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted this finding, noting that the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.Issue 2 - Disallowance of payment to Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited and Sai Om Labour:The Assessing Officer disallowed payments made to Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited and Sai Om Labour due to lack of appearance before the AO and unsupported bills. However, the CIT(A) overturned this disallowance, citing the availability of delivery challans and test certificates. The CIT(A) also noted that the transactions were confirmed by the employee and director of Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited. Similarly, in the case of Sai Om Labour, it was established that the engagement of the labour contractor was essential for the business. The ITAT upheld these findings, concluding that the decisions of the CIT(A) were correct based on the evidence presented.Conclusion:Both the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were overturned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) and subsequently upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere as the appellate authorities were satisfied with the evidence and documents provided. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no question of law was deemed to arise.