TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,06,68,374 out of labour charges ? 'la. While deleting the said disallowance, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that six stitchers to whom the assessee had claimed to have paid labour charges had categorically stated that neither the bills were made by them nor were these signed by him. lb. While deleting the above disallowance, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has heavily relied upon Bill No. 172 which is in fact fabricated and bogus and is in total contradiction to the assessee's claim and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... termed in the same manner. On doubts raised by the Assessing Officer, the statement of various stitchers were recorded. Pertinently, -one of these stitchers denied having carried out the job work of stitching inflatable balls at the instance of the assessee. Again, pertinently, they confirmed that even though the signatures on the pink slips were not there, their signatures were there on the fortnightly stitching Bill No. 172. Obviously, from such statement of the stitchers, the burden cast on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure claimed got duly discharged. The factum of the said Bill No. 172 being available on the file of the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the statement of six stitchers goes a long way ....