9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority has disallowed 30% of the speed money and consequently a sum of Rs. 67,59,784/- was added to the income of the respondent-assessee. Challenging the said order, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore, which was allowed vide its order dated 21.10.2009. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal against the said order of the CIT (Appeals), which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said orders, this appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. We have heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Department as well as Sri S.Parathasarathi, learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has submitted the very fact that 70% of the payment made has been allowed by the Assessing Officer would be a admission on the part of the Department that the sub-contractors were carrying on the business of providing labourers to the respondent-assessee and hence the genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. It is contended that the question as to whether the sub-contractors had paid the amount to the labourers or not is not a question to be answered by the respondent-assessee as once the assessee has made major payment to the sub-contractors through cheque and the TDS has also been deducted, it is for the sub-contractors to prove and show to the department in their assessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd deposited by the respondent-assessee with the Department. It may be reiterated that the question as to whether further payment had been made by the sub-contractors to the labourers would be a question to be answered by the sub-contractors in their assessment proceedings. Merely because in the earlier years the respondent-assessee had made payment to the labourers directly and for the assessment year in question they had shifted the mode of payment through the sub-contractors, cannot make the entire transaction doubtful. The expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for the purpose in question through the sub-contractors cannot be said to be prohibited by law. Unless the payment through a sub-contractor is prohibited by law, me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
