Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (1) TMI 1336 - HC - Income TaxMaintainability of appeal in High Court - substantial question of law or not? - income tax officer disallowed expenses and determining income at a higher amount - additional ground was incorporated in the appeal in respect of disallowance of payment as it was stated that there never existed any relationship between the appellant and the payee as contractor and sub-contractor HELD THAT - The appellant had undertaken civil contract from two companies and the work was widening and strengthening of existing road repairing widening of road side shoulders etc. and in that connection the purchases were shown at Rs. 15, 49, 684/-. Then it was stated that there was sub contract of Rs. 2, 24, 63, 228/- and the TDS liability was Rs. 2, 41, 846/-. The list of subcontractors went upto 25 persons and it appears that he had deliberately avoided to furnish the details of subcontractors. Each and every entry appears to have been considered by the AO. Being dissatisfied with the assessment order when the petition was preferred the first appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal and genuine expenses were considered. Reasoned orders have been given as to why they have been considered and why they have not been considered. Again the appeal was preferred by the appellant before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune. After giving hearing to the appellant that appeal has also been partly allowed. Few more expenses were allowed to be shown as expenses but what has been disallowed is that the parties in whose names the cheques were alleged to be issued by the appellant have deposed on oath that the signature on the back side of the cheques and the rubber stamps were not of their business establishments and they have neither encashed the cheques from the bank nor received the amount from third parties i.e. to the extent of Rs. 13, 10, 000/- as it was claimed by the appellant that he has spent that amount on purchase of marble. It was found that the expenses incurred were bogus expenses. We have made inquiry with the learned Advocate for the appellant as to why the marble was purchased for construction of roads. He made a submission that the appellant has made the construction/repairing work of the office of the highway authority where the marble has been put. In fact we could not find any such document on record which showed that contract of construction of such office was also given to the appellant. Certainly the said expenses appear to be not connected to the work undertaken and therefore it has been said to be the bogus expenses. Further as regards the additional ground that was raised by a reasoned order Tribunal has considered it to the extent of Rs. 1, 45, 00, 000/- (rounded off only) and it is rightly to be so as it covered the partly allowed claim of the appellant by learned CIT(A) and taking into consideration the TDS deposited by the assessee on 15.10.2010 but the amount was debited from the bank account of assessee on 20.10.2010 it came to be partly allowed and therefore it is said that it is the part claim but that part which has been granted is in favour of the appellant. A reasoned order has been passed for allowing or disallowing the claim of the appellant. There is no question of substantial question of law when all the facts have been considered.
|