Shri Subhash Bose Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The main grievance of the assessee was that before making the dis allowance the assessee was never given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy which was made in the auditor’s report. According to the ld. Counsel, sec. 43B of the Act is attracted only when the amount in question are debited to the P&L Account for the relevant assessment year but not paid within the specified date. According to him, in this case the fact is that the concerned liability of Rs. 1,78,334/- was not out of the current year’s VAT expenses of Rs. 9,83,648/- but brought forward from the earlier year. For substantiating this contention, the Ld. AR drew our attention to ledger account available at page 76 of the paper book which is the VAT outstanding account wherein we observe as on 01.04.2009, the opening balance is shown as Rs. 1,79,337.50 and the closing balance is also shown as Rs. 1,78,334.50 an amount of Rs. 1,003/- was paid as per challan on 24.09.2009. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, the tax auditor claimed that the impugned unpaid VAT amounting to Rs.1,78,334/- was incurred in the previous year of 2009-10 was, therefore, not true at all but a mistake happened to the auditor and the assessee cannot be victimized for the error committed by the auditor. The Ld. AR submitted that in the year under consideration, a total VAT expenditure debited to the P&L Account was Rs. 9,83,648/- which is evident from page 77 of the paper book, which is the VAT ledger account for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 which shows that entire amount has been debited by various parties and therefore, there was no unpaid liability on this account. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the entire dis allowance represents the VAT outstanding for the FY 2007-08 and 2006- 07 of Rs. 18,027/- and Rs. 1,60,307 respectively and in this matter the tax auditor duly reported concerned liabilities in their tax audit report i.e. C-21B(b) of F/No.3CD which was placed at pages 84, 85 and 100 of paper book. From page 85 it reveals that VAT not paid was to the tune of Rs. 18,027/- (For 3CD of AY 2008-09 starting from page 80) and from page 100 shows Rs. 1,60,307.50 not paid (which is Form No. 3CD for AY 2007-08 (starting from page 96 of paper book on-wards). Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the impugned sum were also added back in the computation of income for those assessment years and the Ld. AR drew our attention to ITR Acknowledgement and computation pages 78, 79, 90 and 91 of the paper book from where we find the facts to be correct. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the dis allowance on account of VAT not pad of Rs.1,78,334/- was made by the AO only because of erroneous auditor’s report and it has been brought to our notice how the error has occurred and we find that assessee’s contentions are backed by records, therefore, we being the final fact finding authority, find that it was the mistake of the auditor who has wrongly given the figures and made wrong observation because of which the AO made the dis allowance. However, the AO before making the dis allowance could have asked the assessee to explain before making the dis allowance. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not appreciating the contention of the assessee in right perspective, therefore, we are inclined to delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 06.02.2015 for AY 2010-11.
2. The first ground of appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in enhancing the assessment by way of disallowing entire expenses on account of labour charges of Rs. 99,35,275/- u/s. 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee carries on construction business mainly in the nature laying of underground piping, construction of reservoir, build up of iron & Arsenic Treatment Plant etc. in various projects of government departments and local authorities. The assessee maintains books of account, which are duly audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. The return for the relevant year was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 20,93,155/- as outstanding labour charges against total claim of labour charges amounting to 99,35,275/- pertaining to the AY 2010-11. The AO, therefore, asked the assessee to provide details of such outstanding and the AO noticed that in response to the same, list of outstanding labour charges incurred in this assessment year under consideration was submitted. The AO on a test check basis issued letters u/s. 133(6) of the Act to ten parties whose names and addresses are given in page 2 of the assessment order. However, the AO noticed that all the notices were returned unserved with the comments ‘no such persons, not known etc.’ Thereafter, the AO disallowed Rs. 12,65,216/- by making the following observation:
“The total amount of sundry creditors on account of labour charges was Rs.20,93, 155/-. As already stated none of the ten notices issued u/s. 133(6) could be served on the addressees. Thus assessee failed to submit any explanation in response to this office letter dated 18.02.2013. The opportunity was allowed to the assessee to produce the creditors which were not availed. The notices were issued on representative basis and return of the same citing reason of non-existence of the addresses in the addresses provided by the assessee himself, provides an indication that claim of the assessee regarding outstanding balance of Rs. 20,93,155/- was not on factual basis. However it is also not deniable that possibility or certain amount of payable as on 31.03.2010, on account of labour charges remains in this instant case also. Thus the undersigned decides that a part of assessee ‘s claim be allowed on estimate basis. The total amount of claim of expenses under the head labour charges was Rs. 99,35,275/-. The undersigned estimates outstanding amount to be 1/12th of claim of expenses under the head labour charges i.e. Rs. 82 7,939/- ( Rs. 99,35,275/- / 12) and disallow balance claim of outstanding labour charges and claim of corresponding expenditure of Rs. 12,65,216/- (Rs. 20,93, 155 less Rs. 827,939/-) treating the same as bogus expenditure.
Thus addition on this issue of bogus s/creditors on account of labour charges and claim of expenditure corresponding to the aforementioned s/creditors comes to Rs. 12,65,216/-.”
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to enhance the assessment by disallowing the labour expenses for the entire year amounting to Rs. 99,35,275/- by making a finding that the entire labour cost has been met by the assessee from unaccounted money sources and, therefore, the entire sum of Rs. 99,35,275/- was brought to tax u/s. 69C of the Act and also held that no deduction for the same is permissible under any other section as provided by Explanation below to sec. 69C of the Act and thus, made an addition of Rs.99,35,275/- to the total income. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is before us.
4. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The AO noted that a sum of Rs. 20,93,155/- is payable as outstanding labour charges in respect of the current year’s dues which was the total amount of sundry creditor on account of labour charges. The AO issued on test check basis notice to ten parties u/s. 133(6) of the Act on the addresses given by the assessee. However, since the notice could not be served and it got returned back, the AO noted that the outstanding balance of Rs. 20,93,155/- may not be on actual basis, however, he was of the opinion which is reproduced in his own words:
“(a) However, it is also not discernible that possibility of certain amount of payable as on 31.03.2010 on account of labour charges remains in this instance case also. Thus the undersigned decides that a part of assessee ’s claim be allowed on estimate basis.”
Thereafter, we note that the AO estimated the outstanding amount to be 1/12th of claim of expenses under the head labour charges i.e. Rs.827,939/- (Rs.99,35,275/- /12) and disallowed the balance claim of outstanding labour charges and thus, the claim of corresponding expenditure of Rs. 12,65,216/- was disallowed treating the same as bogus expenditure. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the dis allowance by doing his own exercise and brought in the transaction of only PHE Directorate, Nadia Division into picture. The Ld. CIT(A) after perusing the ledger account of the said PHE Directorate, Nadia Division has given a chart in page 12 and had made an analysis about the liquid funds in the hands of the assessee to demonstrate and find that the assessee did not had cash in hand to disburse to the labourers. Thus, according to the Ld. CIT(A), since the labour charges have been paid, the said sum of money could have been from the unaccounted source of the assessee and, therefore, he disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee at Rs. 99,35,275/-. We find that the entire exercise of the Ld. CIT(A) is flawed, erroneous and is perverse. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has conveniently not brought the entire fact on record and has only taken the payment received from PHE, Nadia Division to make the case that assessee did not have liquid cash in hand to disburse to labourers and disallow the entire claim u/s. 69 of the Act. For understanding the entire fact, we would like to reproduce the chart reproduced by Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 of his order, which are as under:
