TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made at the different sites in the registers maintained by the contractor at such different sites. It is the consolidated Day Book and Cash Book of the assessee which is produced before the AO which does not indicate such payments having not been made on a consolidated basis; which is the only inference available from the Cash Book of the assessee, which has been entered on a daily basis. We find that the Accounts Book cannot be relied on to challenge the disallowance made and the amendment made with effect from 01.04.2009 is not at all applicable in the above case. We specifically notice that Sunil Kumar [ 2016 (4) TMI 637 - PATNA HIGH COURT] was a case in which the AO had disallowed the aggregate payments made on a single day by several vouchers to a single person which aggregate amounts exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. It was specifically noticed by the Division Bench that in the present case not a single payment has been made through any voucher exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and hence it was not open to the AO to have aggregated the said payments. Such aggregation of payments would have been possible after 01.04.2009 is the corollary to the declaration made in the decision. We bow to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided under Section 40A(3), none of which applied in the case of the assessee. 3. It was noticed that the Cash Book of the firm indicated amounts beyond Rs. 20,000/- having been paid for material purchases and the assessee was to explain why 20 per cent of it should not be disallowed. The assessee s contention was that the Books of Account itself shows that the amounts paid on a single day were for payment of material brought in different trucks clearly indicating that they were bifurcated payments. The Assessing Officer, however, found that none of the bills or vouchers were produced, which the assessee admitted they did not have in their possession; for having not obtained such bills or vouchers. It was asserted that the payments were made to the individual truck drivers who brought the material. The assessee before us also pointed out that though the Cash Book showed payments on a single day, the Day Book clearly bifurcated the same based on the truck loads of material received, which indicates the payment having been made individually to the truck drivers; none of which single payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. The Assessing Officer refused to accept the contention of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jee v. Debi Das Roy; (2005) 10 SCC 402 to urge that an erroneous finding of fact bordering on perversity would be a substantial question of law which can be considered by the High Court. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Rajinder Prasad Jain; (2015) 374 ITR 545 (P H-HC) and Prasad Construction Co. v. CIT others; (2016) 388 ITR 597 (Pat-HC) to urge the non-sustainability of estimates of income in civil contract businesses. 8. Aloo Supply Co. (supra) considered the then existing provision under Section 40A(3) which had the statutory limit of Rs. 2500/-. Therein, the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the assessee that the entry made in the cash book at the end of the day, relating to all the payments made to a party during the day, would not run contrary to the explanation of the assessee that the payee had accepted the money in different installments. We are unable to accept the aforesaid principle in the present case especially since the Assessing Officer had specifically found that in the present case though there was a contention raised of the assessee having paid the amounts to the truck drivers on the delivery of goods at different work sites; it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Insofar as the estimates on civil contract business, we are not convinced that the modification made by the First Appellate Authority on the premise that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was on an estimate is correct especially since the specific provision under which the disallowance was made, mandates such disallowance to the percentage indicated therein on there being no evidence to indicate payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- by account payee drawn cheques/drafts. However, the State having not filed any appeal from the estimate made, we do not think it proper to interfere in the modification made by the First Appellate Authority. 11. The decision in Sunil Kumar (supra) especially reckoned the amendment brought about to the provision with effect from 01.04.2009. It was noticed that the disallowance of an expenditure was possible prior to the amendment only if a single payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. Payments made to a single person on a single day would qualify for disallowance, if it exceeds Rs. 20,000/- only after the amendment made on 01.04.2009. We cannot doubt the above proposition as coming out from the amended provision as declared by another Division Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash Book also would have indicated such payments having been made at the different sites in the registers maintained by the contractor at such different sites. It is the consolidated Day Book and Cash Book of the assessee which is produced before the Assessing Officer which does not indicate such payments having not been made on a consolidated basis; which is the only inference available from the Cash Book of the assessee, which has been entered on a daily basis. We find that the Accounts Book cannot be relied on to challenge the disallowance made and the amendment made with effect from 01.04.2009 is not at all applicable in the above case. 13. We specifically notice that Sunil Kumar (supra) was a case in which the Assessing Officer had disallowed the aggregate payments made on a single day by several vouchers to a single person which aggregate amounts exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. It was specifically noticed by the Division Bench that in the present case not a single payment has been made through any voucher exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and hence it was not open to the Assessing Officer to have aggregated the said payments. Such aggregation of payments would have been possible after 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
