2026 (1) TMI 968

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal has been filed before us with a delay of three days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the assessee was in a dilemma as to whether the appeal should be filed before the Tribunal or not. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee was uncertain about the necessity of pursuing further appellate remedy and required some time to take an informed decision. The decision to file the appeal was ultimately taken, but due to this process of contemplation and seeking advice, the appeal could be filed only after a delay of three days. It has been affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer that the sub-contract payment of Rs. 19,87,932/ - made to Shri P. Anjani Kumar on a mere pretext that the sub- contractor failed to provide the bank account statement and RA bills is unreasonable. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) would have appreciated that the appellant has proved the payment by producing the bank statement where the payment made to sub-contractor is proved and also the return filed has proved payment of tax on such receipt in the hands of the sub-contractor and would have all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bill and the copy of subcontract agreement with the assessee. However, in the absence of (i) bank account copy of the subcontractor and (ii) RA bills evidencing execution of work, the Ld. AO held that the genuineness of the subcontract expenses was not established. Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs. 19,87,932/- under section 37(1) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO made other addition of Rs. 7,54,584/- under section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 10,19,92,786/-. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), agreeing with the findings ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the subcontractor, the expenditure becomes allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ajaipal Mangal & Co. vs ACIT, ITAT Mumbai, ITA No.1973/Mum/2022 (AY 2017-18) dated 12.10.2022, ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd vs DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad, 111 taxmann.com 49 and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs SVE Engineers Pvt Ltd, 75 Taxmann.com 109. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the subcontract agreement and RA bills furnished contain only the scope of work undertaken by the assessee. These documents do not specifically describe the nature of work actually executed by the subcontractor. It was furt....