TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,06,06,716/- (Rs.1,14,49,545 - Rs. 8,42,829) made on account of unverifiable sundry creditors as the assessee failed to produce any books of account and also failed to give new address of the creditors for verification." 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,53,716/- i.e. 5% of materials purchased as the assessee failed to produce any details of materials consumed and also no books of account & supporting documents were produced." 4. "Any other ground, appellant craves leave to submit on or before the hearing of the appeal." Shri Sallong Yaden, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri D.S. Damle, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. 2. Fist issue raised by Revenue in ground No.1 is that Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.60,02,671/-on account of non-availability of supporting evidence. 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is an individua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the AO by observing as under:- "5.3 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and have perused the details of labour charges as debited in the appellant's profit & loss account. As noted in the foregoing during the relevant year the appellant carried on the business as a government contractor. The appellant executed civil contract in the interiors of West Bengal. The nature of appellant's business required him to engage unskilled manual labour in large number at the work sites. Having regard to the nature of business carried on by the assessee it was essential for the assessee to engage labour which was mainly sourced locally. As a general practice the local labour executing manual jobs are semi-literate and migrant in nature. In the impugned order the AO did not dispute the fact that the appellant had maintained records of labour wages disbursed at various sites. As per the normal practice followed in the business of contract execution, labour wages are disbursed periodically in cash and therefore the mere fact that the assessee incurred the labour wages in cash cannot militate against the assessee. It is not disputed by the AO that the appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in appeal before us. 5. Before us Ld. DR submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunities of being heard but most of the time assessee failed to appear before AO. Therefore in the interest of natural justice matter should be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as assessee failed to produce books of account, bills and vouchers. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the submissions that were placed before Ld. CIT(A). He relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The instant case, addition was made by AO on account of non-production of supporting evidence in relation to labour charges. Therefore, the AO disallowed the labour charges on ad hoc basis @ 10%. However, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of AO by deleting the same. Now the issue before us arises whether the relief granted by Ld. CIT-A in the above facts and circumstances is justified. 6.1 The AO has framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act which is contrary of his own finding that supporting evidences were not furnished by assessee. The AO was very much empowered to reject the books of acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at 8% of the contract receipts and 4% in so far sub-contracting is concerned. Honble lordship of Tribunal, directed to estimate the income @ 6% from the contract business sand so far as profit on sub-contract business and road roller hiring is concerned uphold the estimation as adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to meet the end of justice. 5. In the case of the ACIT Gandhidham Circle vs. M/s Ishwar Construction Co. Gandhidham, ITA No. 1140/RJT/2009 it has been held that in the AY 2005- 06, the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction. Assessee fails to provide proper evidence in the shape of bills, vouchers, unable to verify purchases before the AO and AO made addition for unexplained purchase, sub-contract expenses and under valuation of work-in-progress. The Ld. CIT(A) estimated the total income by applying net profit rate of 4%. Both the assessee and revenue has challenged to the extent of order against them. The Tribunal inclined upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirmed." However, in the instant case, we find that the assessee has offered net profit @ 6.5% which is quite reasonable from the business of Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find out the authenticity of the expenses. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has reduced the same on the same ground. However, we are of the view that no estimated disallowance scan be made for inability to make independent verification. If any specific expenditure is unverifiable or is un-vouched, then such specific expenditure is disallowable. Her no such specific identification has been done. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the estimated disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is unsustainable. Consequently the same stands deleted. In the result, Grounds No. 2 & 3 of the assessee's appeal stand allowed." In the light of above reasoning, we hold that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Consequently, Revenue's ground is dismissed. 7. Next issue raised by Revenue in ground No.2 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO for Rs.106,06,716/- on account of unverifiable sundry creditors. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO issued notice to several creditors of the assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act but in many cases either the notice was not served or no reply was made by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived by assessee as all the transactions are arising in the books of account of the assessee from the business. In view of the above, the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO is based on his conjecture and surmise. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee observed certain facts as detailed under:- a) AO failed to bring the provision of the Act under which the addition was made; b) Out of 12 parties, 11 parties are the trade creditors with whom the assessee was doing regular business transactions; c) All the creditors shown in the books of account were arisen from the purchase made by assessee thus no loan of whatsoever was taken by assessee from those parties; According Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- "... ... it appeared from the material on record that the assessee had trading transactions with 11 parties. From the copies of accounts furnished, it appeared that 11 parties had either supplied materials or labor for executing contractual jobs. Value of invoices raised by each of the party was credited to the individual account of the creditor in the appellant's books. Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aji Enterprise, Nur Ali Khan & Sahabudin Dhalihad filed their confirmatory letters in the office of the AO much before the completion of the assessment. In their confirmatory letters, the parties had confirmed their transactions with the appellant. As regards addition of outstanding sum of Rs.8,42,829/- mad in the name of Bengal Trading Corporation, I note that the said Bengal Trading Corporation is another proprietary concern of Shri Debdas Dutta i.e. the appellant himself. It therefore appeared that one proprietary concern of the appellant had provided sum of money to another proprietary concern i.e. Bengal Trading Company. As such, the transactions between the two proprietary concerns beneficially belonged to the appellant himself. Having regard to these facts, I therefore find that the addition made by the AO was factually as well as legally unjustified. 6.6 As noted in the foregoing, the amounts were added by the AO without specifying the enabling provision of the Act which permitted the AO to make addition only in respect of outstanding balances appearing in the accounts of sundry creditors. The information and evidences on record prove that save and except the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that since in respect of sums due to 11 parties the AO did not dispute or disbelieve the appellant's trading transactions with these parties during the year, no addition in respect of outstanding balances was justifiable under Assessment Year of the extant provisions of the Act. As regards addition of Rs.8,42,289/-, being amount outstanding and due in the name of Bengal Trading Corporation, it appeared that both Bengal Trading Company and Bengal Trading Corporation were proprietary concerns of the assessee himself and therefore liability appearing in the books of one proprietary concern in the name of another could not be assessed as the income of the appellant. for the reasons discussed in the foregoing, therefore, the entire addition of Rs.1,14,49,545/- is directed to be deleted. Ground No.s 3, 4 & 5 are allowed." The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 10. Before us Ld. DR submitted that books of account were not produced before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before AO. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) should have rejected books of account as he held co-terminus power but Ld. CIT(A) failed to invoke the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act He requested the Bench to restore th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., accordingly, that the trading account is not correct. However, on going through the assessment order, it is evident that the trading results have been accepted. Despite this, for the sake of analysis, if it is considered that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors and, consequently, the purchases to that extent are not genuine, then the declared gross profit of Rs. 32,16,564 will get further enhanced by Rs. 37,99,907, i.e., a GP of Rs. 70,16,471 on a total turnover of Rs. 2,51,55,930 giving an exorbitant gross profit rate of 27.89 per cent, which is not the case. It is also important to note that the assessee is in the business of exports and its entire income is exempt. There is, as such, no reason for the assessee to suppress the profit as its income. [Para 20] Taking into consideration the above facts of the assessee, it is a fit case not to make any addition by invoking the deeming fiction of section 68 in respect of the sundry creditors, despite the fact that the assessee could not supply the addresses of these creditors. All the facts and circumstances of the case, including that of destruction of books of account, old period, petty karig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were furnished before the AO. On perusal of the impugned order, it appeared that despite appellant's alleged failure to comply with notices, the AO did not complete the assessment u/s. 144. I also find that the AO did not invoke provisions of Section 145(3) and thereby did not reject books of account and the results as disclosed by the audited profit & loss account. The books of the appellant were audited u/s. 44AB of the Act and the AO did not prove o indicate any falsity or infirmity in the information statutorily provided by the Tax Auditor. In the circumstances, I find that the AO did not prove any specific short coming or inadequacy in the audited accounts furnished before him. The appellant had also furnished the details of materials consumed and no specific infirmity in these details was pointed out. I further note that even though the AO stressed on the fact of non-compliance on the appellant's part, yet 95% of the expenses was allowed by the AO himself, meaning thereby that the AO was satisfied about the genuineness of the expenditure to the extent of 95%. In the above background, therefore, I do not see any justification in the AO's action of disbelieving the genuinen....