2025 (7) TMI 380 - HC - Income Tax

Gujarat HC dismisses tax appeal as withdrawn involving section 69C addition for contract labour payments despite appellant's arguments

Yagnesh V Budh Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3)

The Gujarat HC dismissed a tax appeal as withdrawn after the appellant sought permission to withdraw. The case involved an addition under section 69C for ... Addition u/s 69C - payments made to labourers - appellant is an individual and is engaged in the business of supply of labourers on contract basis - Addition made on the basis of the statement of the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings - Tribunal arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) restored the addition made by the AO Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the findings arrived at by the CIT(A) to the effect that the entire addition u/s 69C is made on the basis of the statement of the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings and therefore, the findings of the AO is not logical or correct because the amount alleged to have been paid by the appellant about 80% of the outstanding at the end of the year shown in the audited balance sheet prior to March, 2001 do not reflect the correct position as there is sufficient cash balance shown at the end of the year on 31.03.2001. HELD THAT:- As Appellant under instructions seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. Considering such request, we decline to answer the question of law arising in this Tax Appeal and accordingly, the Tax appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Court was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in restoring the addition of Rs. 10,81,248/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of payments made to labourers, which the appellant claimed were not made out of undisclosed sources but were reflected by sufficient cash balance in the books of account.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Legitimacy of addition under Section 69C for unexplained payments to labourers where payments were alleged to be made from undisclosed sources despite sufficient cash balance in books.Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69C of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to make additions to income where payments are made out of unexplained sources. The burden lies on the assessee to prove that such payments were made from disclosed and legitimate sources. Precedents emphasize that unexplained payments not reflected in books or supported by evidence can be added back to income.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reviewed the factual matrix and the orders passed by the AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], and the Tribunal. The AO disallowed Rs. 10,81,248/- treating payments to labourers as made from undisclosed sources, relying on the assessee's admission that 80% of labour charges were paid in cash but entries were not recorded in books. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, reasoning that the appellant had sufficient cash balance in the books from October 2000 to March 2001, and that the payment could not be said to be from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) found the AO's reliance on the balance sheet contradictory, given that the appellant was honest in admitting payments and that the balance sheet did not reflect the true cash position due to delayed accounting entries.The Tribunal, however, restored the addition, holding that the onus was on the assessee to prove payments made during the year. It noted that the balance sheet showed cash in hand of Rs. 10,73,280 but also showed labour charges as current liabilities of Rs. 13,51,560. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to maintain proper entries or provide proof of payments to labourers and that the revised balance sheet filed during appeal proceedings was not before the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal concluded that the payments were made from undisclosed sources, as no contemporaneous evidence or entries supported the payments.Key evidence and findings: The appellant's audited balance sheet showed a cash balance of Rs. 10,73,280 as on 31.03.2001 and current liabilities including labour charges of Rs. 13,51,560. The appellant admitted in statements recorded under Section 131 that 80% of labour payments were made in cash during October 2000 to March 2001 but entries were not recorded in books. The CIT(A) relied on the availability of cash and the appellant's honesty in admitting payments, while the Tribunal emphasized the absence of proper accounting entries and proof of payments, and the timing of the revised balance sheet.Application of law to facts: The CIT(A) applied the principle that unexplained payments cannot be added if explained by cash balance and honest admission of payments, even if accounting entries were delayed. The Tribunal applied the principle that the burden lies on the assessee to prove payments and that failure to maintain proper books or provide evidence leads to addition under Section 69C. The Tribunal also emphasized procedural propriety, noting that the revised balance sheet was not before the AO or CIT(A) and thus could not be considered.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the Tribunal ignored the CIT(A)'s findings that the addition was based on assumption and that sufficient cash balance existed in books, negating the possibility of undisclosed sources. The appellant contended that delayed accounting entries did not amount to unexplained income. The Revenue argued that absence of entries and proof of payments justified addition under Section 69C. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, stressing the onus on the assessee and lack of contemporaneous evidence. The CIT(A) took a more lenient view, accepting the appellant's explanation and cash balance as sufficient to negate addition.Conclusions: The Court did not decide the substantial question of law raised, as the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without adjudication on merits. However, the analysis reveals a conflict between the CIT(A)'s approach favoring the assessee's explanation based on cash balance and honesty, and the Tribunal's approach emphasizing strict proof and accounting compliance.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court declined to answer the substantial question of law due to withdrawal of the appeal. Nevertheless, the following principles and reasoning emerge from the orders under review:'Once [the AO] admits that the picture reflected by balance sheet is not correct how can he give a finding which is again based on the said balance sheet. The appellant had sufficient cash balance available with him as per books of account right from Oct 2000 to Mar 01. Therefore obviously the payment to labour would have been made from the said cash.' (CIT(A))'The onus is on the assessee to prove that he made the payment during the year. The assessee has filed the balance sheet duly audited by Chartered Accountant along with the return. Subsequently when the AO raised query... the assessee confessed that he made 80% of the labour charges payment in cash during the period October, 2000 to March, 2001 and it is only 20% amount was outstanding. This is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not made any entry in respect of payment made to the labourers... The only inference could be that the payment has been made to the labourers by the assessee out of undisclosed sources.' (Tribunal)Core principles established or reiterated include:The burden of proof lies on the assessee to demonstrate that payments alleged to be unexplained were made from disclosed sources.Availability of sufficient cash balance in books can explain payments, but must be supported by proper accounting entries or evidence.Delayed or absent accounting entries may lead to inference of undisclosed income unless satisfactorily explained.Revised financial statements produced after assessment proceedings may not be admitted unless properly before the authorities.Final determinations on the issue were not made due to withdrawal of the appeal; however, the conflicting views of CIT(A) and Tribunal highlight the tension between technical accounting compliance and substantive explanation in tax assessments involving unexplained payments under Section 69C.