9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditions , the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), out of which the ld CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of payments made to S/shri Jayaseelan, lnbaraj and Selvam aggregating to Rs. 35,28,192/-. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal. 3. The ld AR submitted that the subcontract work of earth filling for Nalambur site was given to M/s. JS Agency. Initially, the work was entrusted only to J.S. Agency. The J.S. Agency subcontracted the work to M/s. Inbaraj and Selvam in their individual capacity. The three parties have arrived at a settlement between them and agreed that they shall do the work separately in their individual capacity and Mr. Jayaseelan shall be doing the same in the name of J.S. Agency. According to their request, the assessee made the impugned payments individually and they executed the work individually. All the three parties were produced. The parties confirmed that they have received the payment and have done work for the assessee company individually. The total payments made to them are Rs. 1,00,12,023. However, the Assessing Officer contended that, since some of the vouchers of J.S. Agency was signed by Mr. Slevam and Inbaraj the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsigned vouchers. With regard to the issue under consideration in this appeal, from the seized books of account and cash vouchers, the AO noticed that following transactions were recorded in respect of the 3 parties for the year 1996-97. Name Bill raised Payment claimed Unsigned vouchers Vouchers produced J.S. Agency 34,57,206 32,83,308 1,19630 Selvam 35,56,275 35,56,275 34,31,875 33,21,927 Inbaraj 29,20,000 31,72,440 31,51,940 12,01,874 99,33,481 1,00,12,023 67,03,445 45,23,801 During the search, it was noticed that the vouchers in the name of the following persons were not signed. Inbaraj Rs. 31,72,440/- Selvam Rs. 33,25,875/- 4.1 When the assessee was asked to explain, the director of the assessee, Mr. Mohan in his sworn deposition, at the time of search operations on 22.3.2000, deposed that these expenses were debited in the company accounts, drawn by cash and such cash withdrawals were taken by him to make some other payments. The assessee has claimed Rs. 34,57,206/-as an expenditure in the name of J. S. Agency in the books of account. On the same date, the proprietor of M/s J.S. Agency, Mr. Jayaseelan, was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these parties has been varied subsequently. Hence,the AO held that credence could be given to the extent that they are corroborated by other evidence unearthed at the time of search operations etc. Thereafter, the AO evaluated the contemporaneous evidences in the form of bills, raised to the tune of Rs. 64,83,831, and found that they borne the stamp of TCV Engineering Ltd with the note that the bill has been passed and they were with the signature of the site engineerand hence concluded that all of them render credence to such bills, the statement of Mr. Jayaseelan and Mr. Inbaraj also corroborated such conclusion and these bills also shown that the statement of Mr. Selvam is not reliable. Therefore, out of the claim of payment of Rs. 1,00,12,023,the AO inferred that only Rs. 64,83,831 was paid and the balance sum of Rs. 35,28,192was an inflation of expenditure, whichhe disallowed and assessed as an undisclosed income of the assessee for the A.Y 97-98. Aggrieved , the assessee filed an appeal and the ld CIT(A) held that even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee's Counsel could not lead any further evidence to substantiate the claims of payment of Rs. 35,28,182/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false". Therefore, the assessee's plea that the impugned transactions cannot fall under "undisclosed income" U/s.158BA is not tenable. Since the assessee has not proved that the impugned payments were genuine payments, the disallowance made is justified and hence the ld. Sr. standing counsel pleaded to dismiss the assessee's appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. It is clear from the above, that during the search and seizure operations, certain cash vouchers for expenses were found and seized which did not bear the signature of the payee. When they were shown to the Director of the assesse company, Mr Mohan, and questioned about their genuineness, he deposed on 22.3.2000 that the expenses relating to these vouchers were debited in the company accounts, amounts were withdrawn by cash , such cash was taken by him and utilised by him for some other payments. In this regard, he has offered Rs. 87 lakhs as an undis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra, the AO after due consideration of the seized material, the statements recorded at the time of search, the statement recorded from the parties subsequently and on due analysis of the additional evidence produced by the assessee has clearly recorded the reason as to why such claim cannot be accepted and how the assessee has failed to prove that the impugned payment was made to Mr.Selvam and Mr. Inbaraj. It is clear from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not laid any material assailing the findings recorded by the ld.AO and hence, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the impugned additions. Before us also, the assessee has not filed any material assailing the findings recorded by the lower authorities. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities on the quantum. Therefore, the assessee's contention that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO cannot be treated as an assessment of an "undisclosed income" within the scope of Section 158 BA, is held as untenable. Thus, all the grounds of the assesse fail and therefore the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
