Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTAssessment u/s 158BC - addition in respect of ICS and TT on the ground that payments made to the two concerns were inflated and in the nature of accommodation bill - CIT(A) deleting the additions/disallowance, observed that there were several documents, letters and correspondences filed by assessee, which clearly showed that ICS and TT were carrying out Container Freight Services ("CFS") operations for assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has recorded a finding that factually the work was being carried out by ICS and TT and just because books of accounts of ICS and TT was not produced, would not give the AO a reason to believe that the payments made to the two concerns were inflated. CIT(A) has rightly observed that assessee is only expected to produce its own books of accounts and records and not to ensure production of books of account of every party, who has supplied goods or rendered services to assessee. That would amount to impossible burden being placed on assessee. ITAT has accepted this finding and has made pertinent observation that findings of CIT(A) based on material on record has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any positive material on record. Amounts paid to parties who did not appear before the AO and the bills were not supported by delivery challans - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that delivery challans and test certificates were infact available. It is also recorded that the employee and director of Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited had confirmed the transactions and the actual supply of material. So also the case of M/s. Sai Om Labour, assessee was accepted to have proved that the engagement of the labour contractor was essential considering the nature of the business carried on by it. This finding of CIT(A) was also acceptable to ITAT, who on facts have come to conclusions arrived at by CIT(A) were correct. Since on facts two appellate Authorities have expressed satisfaction based on the material and documents produced before them, we see no reason to interfere. No question of law arises.
|