TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and disposed off in this consolidated order. Considering the similarity of the issues, we shall take up ITA No. 87/Viz/2017 (AY 2013-14) as a lead appeal. ITA No. 87/Viz/2017 (AY: 2013-14) 3. This appeal filed by the assessee against the combined order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 37 & 39/2016- 17/CIT(A)-2/C-4(1)/VSP/2016-17, dated 18/01/2017 for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Order passed by the CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustifiable. 2 The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee company, no opportunity is given at the time of asst. proceedings to prove genuineness of both Labourers and material creditors and hence this is a fit case to remand the same to the file of the AG 3. The CIT(A), is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AG, as the assessee company has returned reasonable profit in the ROT, books of accounts of the assessee were rejected in the past asst. proceedings, assessee company has made a request to the AO to reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent liabilities towards material purchase. The AO also noted that the assessee failed to adduce primary evidence in support of the existence of some of such credit liabilities. As a result, an amount of Rs. 1,61,61,069/- was added to the total income, after excluding the opening balance and liability claimed towards sub-contractors. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 24,15,012/- by way of disallowance u/sec. 40(a)(ia) and thus determined total income of Rs. 3,47,95,350/-. Similarly for the A.Y. 2014-15 certain additions amounting to Rs. 6,98,71,035/- were made towards unexplained labour credits. It is also noted that the assessee failed to produce confirmation letters from both labour and material contractors. 6. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A) assessee filed a letter dated 13/12/2016 for admission of additional evidence in the form of confirmation letters for 8 out of 17 labour creditor groups. It was submitted by the assessee that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for not submitting the confirmation letters before the AO and hence, requested to admit the additional evidence. The ld.CIT(A) forw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed about the admission of the additional evidence and after obtaining a remand report from the Ld. AO, rejected the additional evidences provided by the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has failed to produce Muster Rolls / Attendance of the 17 labour groups which were sought by the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR further submitted that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the labour payments were genuine by providing the copies of the Attendance Register, Muster Rolls etc. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has even failed to produce the samples of the Muster Rolls in case if the assessee considers it as a voluminous data. He therefore pleaded that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. Countering the arguments of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that various confirmation letters have been provided in page 45 of the paper book. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, in respect of the opportunities provided by the Ld AO, the assessee has failed to produce the required evidence in support of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. Further, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bligation to deduct tax at source on various payments as envisaged in the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source thereby disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) is warranted. We therefore find that the Ld. AO has rightly made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 88/Viz/2017 (AY: 2014-15) 14. This appeal filed by the assessee against the combined order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 37 & 39/2016- 17/CIT(A)-2/C-4(1)/VSP/2016-17, dated 18/01/2017 for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Order passed by the CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustifiable. 2 The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee company, no opportunity is given at the time of asst. proceedings to prove genu....