TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified, no question of law arises Disallowance of machinery hire/repairs/spares expenses expenses - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Tribunal confirmed the same observing that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any defects in the vouchers and had made ad-hoc addition - no reason to entertain the question. Disallowance of Site & Rasoda Expenses - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- The expenses were supported by the evidence on record and the assessee had produced all the bills and vouchers which were verified by the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy was found. Addition of suppression of receipts - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- ssessee and M/s. K.M. Patel & Co. agreed to make investment in such proportion for carrying out construction work jointly undertaken by them. If out of their relation and robust undertaking, the receipts were divided in a certain ratio which was not strictly in proportion of 60:40 percentage of investment made by them respectively, the same cannot be a ground for any addition in hands of the assessee that too without any additional material of the assessee actually having received additional payments not reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression of receipts?" [H] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,44,787/- made on account of labour expenses?" [I] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,75,572/- made on account of transport contractors expenses?" [J] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 38,12,667/- made on account of claim of expenditure for rendering transportation services to Shri Manoj K. Agrawal?" 2. We would take up the discussion question-wise. 3. Insofar as question(A) is concerned, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs. 28.77 lakhs(rounded off) under section 40A(2) (b) of the Act pertaining to payment made to one M/s. G.K. Engineering. Such disallowance was deleted by the Commissioner(Appeals), upon which the Revenue approached the Tribunal. Tribunal by impugned judgement confirmed the view of the CIT(Appeals) observing that the assessee had explained before the Assessing Officer the circumstances in which the payment was made to sister concern and there was nothing unreasonable about such payments. In fact the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery hire expenses. Here also CIT(Appeals) deleted the same. Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) observing that the Assessing Officer without pointing out any specific defects in the bills and vouchers made ad-hoc additions. Tribunal approved the observations of the CIT(Appeals) that without such service, the assessee could not have completed the work assigned. Issue is entirely factual, based on appreciation of evidence. No question of law arises. 7. Question(E) pertains to disallowance of sum of Rs. 1.24 lakhs (rounded off) made by the Assessing Officer on account of machinery repairs/spares expenses. CIT(Appeals) deleted such disallowance. Tribunal confirmed the same observing that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any defects in the vouchers and had made ad-hoc addition. Additionally, we also notice that the amount involved is also not substantial. We see no reason to entertain the question. 8. Question (F) pertains to disallowance of Rs. 86,000/- (rounded off) on account of Site and kitchen expenses. CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal concurred that such disallowance was wrongly made. Tribunal in particular, observed that the expenses were supported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue." We are of the opinion that entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record. CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that addition was not justified. Learned counsel for the Revenue however, vehemently contended that the assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel Co. had agreed to share the receipts in ratio of 60:40. They could not have thereafter, modified such arrangement without any written contract. From the record it however, emerges that assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel Co. agreed to make investment in such proportion for carrying out construction work jointly undertaken by them. If out of their relation and robust undertaking, the receipts were divided in a certain ratio which was not strictly in proportion of 60:40 percentage of investment made by them respectively, the same cannot be a ground for any addition in hands of the assessee that too without any additional material of the assessee actually having received additional payments not reflected in the books. Such question is therefore, turned down. 10. Question (H) pertains to addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
