Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Shri K. C, Mathews, Sr.D.R., For the Respondent : Shri R. N. Vepari, A. R. ORDER Per Shri Mukul Kumar Shrawat, Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising from the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Surat, dated 11.09.2012. The grounds raised are reproduced below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law and more particularly in view of the specific limited directions of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.80IA overstepping the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was not justified in resorting to matters which were not mentioned in the directions of the Hon' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have not been rejected. The assessee has maintained the salary register for every month and also the salary paid to the employees has been shown in its books of account. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the salary register, which is produced on page 7 to 31 of the PB and copy of the workers labour account on pages 31 to 31 and relevant cash book pages 33 to 48 of the PB and copies of Karigar vouchers which is on pages 49 to 54 of the Paper Book. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify these documents and if he find that the workers employed were more than 10, then the AO is further directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IA. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... u/s.271(1)(c) is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 When the matter was carried before learned CIT(A), action of the AO was confirmed on the ground that in the said wages register the first four names of the labourers were in one handwriting and rest of the names from serial nos.5 to 10 were in a different handwriting. Learned CIT(A) has also noted the statement of the director and thereupon affirmed the disallowance. 3. From the side of the assessee, learned A.R., Mr. R.N. Vepari appeared. His first emphasis was that without rejection of books of account u/s.145(3) the rejection of wages register was illegal. He has also informed that in three earlier years after noticing the discrepancy, the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case and decided to restore the issue back to the file of the AO then it is expected from the AO to scrutinize the issue in depth as well as in detail so that the compliance of the directions of the Tribunal should be complete and devoid of any fault. We have noted that, first finding of the Tribunal was that the books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. This fact is apparent from the assessment orders. If the books of account have not been rejected then the question is that whether the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.80IA. Strangely, the AO had not disallowed the expenditure of labour wages on the ground that it was not proved or it was not genuine. Then the question is that why those very payments h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the names of the workers and the details of the days of their working as it was filed before the AO. Learned AR has also drawn our attention on the vouchers which were assigned by those workers, stated to be part of the record of the assessee. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on record, we hereby hold that merely casting doubt on handwriting which was properly confronted, the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.80IA for the year under consideration. We hereby reiterate that by this verdict information of other years are not effected because in the past the assessee has suo motu withdrawn the claim and the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 1998-99 was the last .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates