TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer making disallowance of Rs. 23,93,862/- towards labour charges etc. paid in cash. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts concerning the issue are that the assessee is engaged in executing certain types of contracts such as pipeline laying, dam, roads, building staff quarters and other factory buildings, etc.. During the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer inter-alia noticed that the assessee has incurred expenses towards labour charges to the tune of Rs. 23,93,862/- paid in cash involving five parties listed as under :- Sr.No. Name of the party Amount disallowed (Rs.) 1 Ramesh Jadhav 2,54,129.00 2 Ganesh Tajane 4,81,586.00 3 Gulab Shah 6,18,147.00 4 Jalaram Stone Crusher 4,35,000.00 5 Jamuna ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly two parties namely 'Jamuna Stone Crusher' and 'Gulab Shah' attended before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer further noted in the remand report that Shri Anil Patel (Proprietor of Jamuna Stone Crusher) who appeared in response to summons under section 131 of the Act confirmed before him that he has done work of Rs. 11 lakh for the assessee in the financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10. However, Shri Anil Patel could not produce the bills/vouchers for the alleged work done against the work done. Shri Anil Patel stated that he has not maintained any books of account and also does not have any documentary evidence to support his claim. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that the averments made before him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Book which is stated to be duly authenticated by the respective parties. He submitted that these are small cash payments for obtaining services from these parties where the payments made are truncated and have been made over a period of time. The assessee was not liable to deduct any TDS thereon in terms of the provision of Law. He next submitted that except for one party, summons were admittedly delivered to all other four parties. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn because of the non-compliance of the statutory summons issued under section 131 of the Act. The Ld. AR exhorted that these two parties who attended in response to the summons asserted that they have received the payments from the assessee in consideration of servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of the Act. We also notice the contentions of the Revenue that the assessee could not furnish the primary details about the nature of services rendered by these parties such as site where work was purportedly performed, hours spent, rate charged etc. towards alleged work done. Therefore, the assessee on part has not furnished any documentary evidence to anchor such claim. On a closer study of the 'account extract' of the parties maintained by the Assessee in its books, we also notice that the assessee has made numerous truncated payments of small amounts ranging upto Rs. 20,000/- at one instance. However, at the same time, the said account extract also reveals that in all these five parties, there are several instances where several ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short, except for entries of cash payment in book, no documentary evidences such as bill/invoice, details of work carried out etc. are adduced to prove the bonafides of expenses. No invoice for site development expenses are on record. In respect of party namely 'Jamuna Stone Crusher', it is observed from account extract that it is not a case of labour expenses. The assessee has booked some corresponding 'purchase' against the payment made. However, the purchase bills or any other supporting are not placed on record. The truncated cash payments one after another on almost daily basis and sometimes multiple times on the same day is incomprehensible. The payment of such large amount in cash without meeting obligations under S. 40A(3) and/or to....