Section 133(6) non-response alone cannot sustain labour charge additions where identity and genuineness are documentary proven.

An addition for labour charges could not be upheld merely because section 133(6) notices remained unanswered where the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, Aadhaar, bank statements, vouchers and proof of TDS. The payments were made through banking channels, and the documentary record supported both the identity of the payees and the genuineness of the expenditure. On those facts, the absence of a reply to the notices was insufficient, by itself, to justify the disallowance. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of labour charges paid to three parties was sustainable merely because the notices issued under section 133(6) were not replied to, despite the assessee producing confirmations, identity documents, bank statements, vouchers, and evidence of TDS.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished ledger confirmations, PAN, Aadhaar cards, bank statements showing payments, and labour charge vouchers for the impugned parties. The record showed that the payments were through banking channels and subjected to TDS. In these circumstances, the mere non-response to notices issued under section 133(6) could not, by itself, justify the addition when the surrounding documentary material supported the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the expenditure.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition cannot be sustained solely on the non-response to a section 133(6) notice where the assessee produces credible documentary evidence establishing the identity of the payees and the genuineness of the payments.

---