Wage provisions reversed on actual payment basis allowed as deductions to prevent double disallowance under Section 69

The ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal regarding wage and salary provisions, ruling that reversed provisions claimed on actual payment basis in subsequent years should be allowed as deductions to prevent double disallowance. The tribunal found that Rs. 29.53 lacs provision was fully paid through banking channels in April-May 2017. Regarding unexplained investment under Section 69, the ITAT deleted additions based on loose excel sheets found during search, holding these documents lacked sufficient details, signatures, and corroboration to establish undisclosed income, constituting merely "dumb documents" with no evidentiary value.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of wages payable and salaries payable.
2. Addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable:

The primary contention revolves around the disallowance of wages payable amounting to Rs. 405.91 Lacs and salaries payable of Rs. 17.96 Lacs. The addition was based on discrepancies found in Measurement books (M Books) and excel sheets compared against regular Tally data. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the assessee booked wages payable in the last month of various financial years to suppress profits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reversed the provision of wages payable in the subsequent year and had already offered additional income to that extent in the return filed under Section 153A. The Tribunal noted that the provision was artificially made to suppress profits and was reversed in the return filed under Section 153A. The Tribunal held that if the provision is reversed in a particular year, the payment thereof in the next year should be allowable as expenses of the subsequent year. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, noting that disallowing the expenses in both years would be unjustified.

2. Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69:

The addition of Rs. 11.90 Crores as unexplained investment under Section 69 was based on an excel sheet found during the search, which allegedly contained entries of capital introduction by the partners. The AO argued that the partners introduced unaccounted money generated by the firm. However, the assessee contended that the excel sheet was merely a projection for a TWAD project and not actual transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the statements made by the Accountant and the Managing Partner during search proceedings were contradictory and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal observed that the loose sheets were merely projections and lacked sufficient details to form an opinion of actual cash introduction. The Tribunal cited legal precedents, emphasizing that loose sheets without corroborative evidence do not hold evidentiary value. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, stating that the addition was based on mere surmise without concrete evidence.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting the additions for disallowance of wages and salaries payable and unexplained investment under Section 69, while dismissing the legal grounds raised regarding jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the income in line with its findings. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of corroborative evidence in making additions based on documents found during search proceedings.

---