TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the Assessing Officer had not demonstrated in what manner the charges were excessive, disregarding the fact that the charges were paid to the assessee's son at the rate per trip instead of normal practice of monthly rent ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal is right in law in affirming the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,70,339 made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus liability in the account of M/s. Anuj Construction, disregarding the fact that the liability was created in a period of last three months of the financial year, and the assessee failed to produce the creditor for verification?" 2. On the first question, it would be pertinent to mention that a sum of Rs.1,29,316 paid by cash by the respondent-assessee as tractor charges was ordered to be deleted by the Assessing Officer on account of the fact that the assessee had failed to produce either the creditor or any other material to establish that the aforesaid cash payment was made by the respondent-assessee towards tractor charges. The aforestated determination of the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to him so as to enable the Assessing Officer to determine for himself the veracity of the claim of the respondent-assessee. Since the Assessing Officer did not take cudgels of collecting any material to ascertain the genuineness of the payment of Rs.1,29,316, and further more also, did not consider it just and appropriate to summon the aforestated Dharminder in exercise of the authority vested in him under section 131 of the Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was no material with the Assessing Officer to conclude that the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,29,316 made by way of cash by the respondent-assessee to the aforestated Dharminder was bogus. 4. We have also considered the issue pertaining to the deduction of Rs.1,29,316. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appel-lant before us has been, that the non production of the aforestated Dharminder at the hands of the respondent-assessee was vital to the issue in hand. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no reason for the Assessing Officer to summon the aforesaid Dharminder on account of the fact that the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rma. While exercising the authority vested in the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acknowledged, that payments were made to M/s. Satyen Enterprises at the rate of Rs. 70 per truck. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the appeal of the respondent-assessee and set aside the determination of the Assessing Officer vide order dated September 14, 2004. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the determination rendered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide its order dated November 23, 2007. 7. In order to canvass the second question, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the charges should have been paid to M/s. Satyen Enterprises on a monthly basis and not on truck basis. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is a sufficient basis to conclude, that favour was shown by the respondent-assessee to his son, namely, Satyen Sharma, who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Satyen Enterprises. 8. We have considered the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the issue of truck charges. It is not possible for us to accept the contention o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer on the issue of the aforesaid deduction ordered by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated September 14, 2004, upheld the order of assessment. It is therefore that the respondent-assessee preferred a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent-assessee on the third question vide its order dated November 23, 2007. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the onus to establish that the afore-said expenditure had actually been incurred by the respondent-assessee rested on the shoulders of the respondent-assessee himself, and that, despite being required, the respondent-assessee had failed to produce the party with which the contract for execution of excavation work had been executed, and as such, it was inevitable for the Assessing Officer to treat the aforesaid payment as bogus. 11. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the third question raised at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view, that yet again the Income-tax Appe....