TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.80IA overstepping the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was not justified in resorting to matters which were not mentioned in the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in denying the relief. The appellant submits that the set- aside being with limited directions, the decision had to be within the bounds prescribed by the Tribunal. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the Assessing Officer in trying to decipher the handwriting, wrongly assumed the role of handwriting expert." 2. The order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254, dated 27.11.2009 was in consequence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Karigar vouchers which is on pages 49 to 54 of the Paper Book. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify these documents and if he find that the workers employed were more than 10, then the AO is further directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IA. The case is therefore restored to the file of the AO for the above purpose." 2.1 In consequence thereupon, the AO has proceeded with the matter. According to him, the wages register was in different handwriting and the columns were written in two handwriting which has casted a doubt about the correctness of the said register. The AO has also noted that one of the directors had stated in a statement that there were only four employees. There was a mention of an another statement recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned A.R., Mr. R.N. Vepari appeared. His first emphasis was that without rejection of books of account u/s.145(3) the rejection of wages register was illegal. He has also informed that in three earlier years after noticing the discrepancy, the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn the claim u/s.80IA. He has also informed that the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.1998-99 was a last year for the claim of deduction. He has then placed reliance on the photo copies of the salary register placed in the compilation. He has also argued that the labour expenses of ten labourers were claimed by the assessee as per the said P & L A/c. and the Income Tax Return and that was accepted by the AO. There was no allegation while allowing the labour wages....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.80IA. Strangely, the AO had not disallowed the expenditure of labour wages on the ground that it was not proved or it was not genuine. Then the question is that why those very payments have been doubted while computing the deduction u/s. 80IA. From the side of the assessee, few case law have been cited which are listed below: "1. Vintage Cards & Creations (59-ITD-563). 2. Ormerods Industries (P) Ltd. (176-ITR-470) 3. Taluja Enterprises (P) Ltd. (250-ITR-675) 4. Vishal S. Ruia (1-SOT-902) 5. Mrs. Richa Chadha (96-ITD-325) 6. Rajesh Kapila & Others (22-DTR-569)" 6. In addition to the finding on the books of accounts, the Tribunal has given an another finding that the assess....