TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 31.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14. 2. The only ground of appeal is as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee in respect of payments made to Mr. Mohd Salim S/o. Mohd. Ainuddin Hoque and M/s. Chamunda Borewells (Proprietrix Ms. Gangaben Bhimjibah Chotara) without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of such payments and expenses booked in respect of the same. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43/-, treating the same as non-genuine. 4. In the subsequent appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that it produced all information, details and evidences before the AO in support of the claim. Sri Mohd Salim was a labour contactor who during the previous year supplied labour at various sites. Against each and every RA bill raised, payments had been made. In the course of the search, not only the ledger extracts of the assessee was found, as also supporting documents showing the labour supplied on the respective dates and for what work and from what time to what time the person was engaged by the assessee during the year. The notings on the seized materials were speaking evidences of the genuineness of the transaction with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had prima facie established the genuineness of the expenses by producing various documents or evidences and therefore, the onus shifted to the Department to show otherwise. The AO failed to bring on record any evidence in support thereof except to rely on suspicion and guess work. 4.2 It was contended that the second basis on which the AO disallowed was that the assessee could have produced the parties for verification. It was submitted that coordinate Benches of ITAT and High Courts have held that when purchases are supported by sufficient documentary evidences then merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Reliance was placed on Nikunj Eximp Ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reating its claim of expenditure as nongenuine. It could surely be a ground for starting an investigation. However, in the present case, the AO had not made any independent enquiry from any of the vendors. The AO himself pointed out that a perusal of the seized material showed that the same consisted of RA Bills for the work done by the contractor along with supporting log sheets and other documents based on which RA bills had been prepared. The contentions of the assessee had merit that running bills, ledger extracts recorded in the books, log sheets etc. duly demonstrated the genuineness of the expenses claimed. There was also merit in the contentions that unlike corporate houses these were contractors at the site who had to be sourced fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cisions i.e. Smt. K.V Lakshmi Savitri Devi v ACIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 117 (Hyd - Trib.),the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271,Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504wherein it was held that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Thus, the action of the AO in making the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,24,93,043/- was not sustained and the addition made was deleted. 6. Before us, ld. DR placing reliance on the assessment order submitted that incriminating materials were available. Besides, contractors were from West Bengal not local. Also no signature, thumb impr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act. 7.1 Nothing has been brought by the AO on record to show that expenses incurred on labour contractors were capital in nature or were personal expenses and also were not wholly and exclusively incurred for Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai the purposes of business of the assessee. It is settled law that burden of proof is on assessee and in order to claim that an expenditure falls under section 37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. Where an assessee claims a deduction, the onus is on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. In the instant case, the assessee has be....