TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its submission dated 18.10.2010 is the same which was given earlier. It is the finding of the AO that the assessee filed copies of two bills which are just computer generated bills without any invoice number, service tax number, GST/VAT No. We find from the P/B filed by the appellant that the assessee had filed before the AO vide its letter dated 13.10.2016 during the course of remand proceedings. Thus taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the sub-contract charges of ₹ 44,38,520/- paid to SIPL. - ITA No. 2302/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - Shri C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Rohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2010 to the appellant communicating the above remark of the postal authorities and then asking him to file the correct current address of the concerned party or produce the party for verification. However, the assessee neither submitted the current new address nor produced the party for verification. The AO observed that the fresh address given by the assessee in the submission dated 18.10.2010 is same which was given earlier. In the submission filed before the AO, the assessee had filed copies of two bills which are just computer generated bills without any invoice number, service tax number etc. The AO did not agree with the contentions of the assessee that these are running bills and therefore, not required to have invoice number etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standard requirement in construction contracts, (vi) it is improbable that a price can be fixed for the contract without mentioning the specifications of the contract. It was the contention of the assessee that the detailed project report (DPR) of the project along with the drawings and bill of quantity as well as the system requirement study has been made/prepared by M/s K.S. Softnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a partner of the asssessee joint venture (JV). However, as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A), no such evidence was placed before him. Referring to the first running bill, the Ld. CIT(A) further observed that it mentions submission of quantity details to MPRDC, Bhopal, but the assessee failed to submit any document on it. There is no invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of person is consisting of two companies namely, K.S. Softnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. There were two contracts awarded by Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation in the year 2006-07, one at Multai and another at Burhanpur. The work on the projects commenced during the financial year 2007-08 (AY 2008-09), thus this is the first year of assessment. The Ld. counsel further submits regarding subcontract to SIPL that the same was awarded to them for carrying out certain works vide letter of acceptance dated 04.09.2006. They were given advances on various dates during FYs 2006-07 and 2007-08. A total sum of ₹ 21,91,280/- was paid to them during the FY 2007-08. Whatever work they carried out til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged his burden of proof. Thus the Ld. counsel submits that the AO disallowed the expenditure on mere suspicion. The AO should have realized that the expenses incurred by the appellant were genuine business expenditure. It is stated by him that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not brought on record any material to show that the appellant s averments are untrue. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that all the correspondence produced by the assessee is the one written by the assessee itself and there is no document from the side of SIPL. Also the appellant failed to produce before the Ld. CIT(A) the relevant contract containing the terms, specifications etc. The appellant could produce before him only a lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt address or produce the party for verification. However, the assessee neither submitted the new current address of SIPL nor produced the party for verification. As observed by the AO, the fresh address given by the assessee in its submission dated 18.10.2010 is the same which was given earlier. It is the finding of the AO that the assessee filed copies of two bills which are just computer generated bills without any invoice number, service tax number, GST/VAT No. We find from the P/B filed by the appellant that the assessee had filed before the AO vide its letter dated 13.10.2016 during the course of remand proceedings the following documents 1. Copy of A/c of M/s Shanti Infraways Private Limited, in its books for the period 01-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
