Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1063 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- As during the course of search proceedings no incriminating material was found which could question the genuineness of claim u/s 80IB (10) of the Act made by the assessee - Accordingly, grounds regarding deduction u/s 80IB(10) raised in assessee’s appeals stand allowed. Claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for A.Y.2009-10 to 2011-12 - CIT(A) after taking into consideration the permission granted by the local authority and completion certificate obtained by the assessee within the prescribed time limit has allowed the claim - HELD THAT:- We find that the Revenue could not controvert the factual findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on the ground that the completion certificate was obtained by the assessee within the prescribed time and all other conditions were satisfied and as such, the assessee is entitled to the said deduction. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A). We confirm the order of CIT(A) on this point. Accordingly, grounds regarding issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) raised in the departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2009- 10 to 2011-12 stand dismissed. Disallowance of payment to sub-contractor - CIT disallowed the whole payment on the ground that the identity of the sub-contractors has not been proved - HELD THAT:- We find forced in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the payments are genuine and no disallowance should have been made. Regarding the bills, bank statements of the contractors found at the premises of the assesse, we find that some of the contractors were illiterate and the bills were given by them after part completion of the work, therefore, the blank letter heads and the vouchers were available at the premises of the assessee. Thus, the presence of these documents at the premises of the assessee should have not been considered as bogus payments as these contractors have the PAN and also operating their bank accounts which proved the identities. Therefore, the disallowance on this point was not justified. Regarding the disallowance of 10% from the other payments, we find that the contractors had worked and the TDS was made from the payments but the Assessing Officer unjustifiably disallowed these payments on the ground that the source of the expenditure is not satisfactorily explained. However, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that it was not an undisclosed expenditure but the amounts were debited in the books of the assessee and the source was proved and verifiable from the books of accounts. Thus we decide the issue in favour of the assessee as TDS wherever applicable were made, the payments were genuine, the assessee explained the presence of documents in question and source of the expenditure was also satisfactorily explained as the said amounts were debited in the books of the assesse. Accordingly, grounds raised in the appeals of the assessee.
|