BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 282/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Hyderabad, for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues across the years. The primary contention was regarding the disallowance of certain expenditures under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, which were claimed to be made without deducting TDS. The Tribunal examined the medical condition of the company's director, which led to a significant delay in filing the appeals, and found the reasons for delay credible. The Tribunal also scrutinized the merits of each addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and decided based on the evidence of TDS deductions and the nature of the expenditures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789631 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy Vs. Union of India, Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. BHEL, Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Documents seized; TDS; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153A; 69C; 40(a)(ia); 194C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20) Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad. PAN : AAECB6452G Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri K. Krishna Moorthy, Sr.A.R. सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 11.01.2023, pertains to the assessment years Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 692 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. submitted that, an affidavit has been filed by the Director of the assessee company explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. It was submitted that, the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee company, as detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation petition. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that, the Director of the assessee company, who was responsible for managing its day-to-day affairs and pursuing tax matters, had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder namely “Dissociative Amnesia” coupled with high blood pressure and sugar levels since June, 2022. Due to this condition, he experienced memory loss, severe stress, and anxiety and had been undergoing continuous medical treatment at Medicover Hospitals, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad. The assessee has also filed medical records issued by Medicover Hospitals to substantiate the treatment undergone by the Director of the assessee company. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, because of the ill-ness, the Director of the assessee company was rendered incapable of pursuing the appeal proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and was also unaware of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad. Consequently, the appeals could not be filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. It was further submitted that, the Director of the assessee company came to know about the disposal of the said appeals only in February, 2025, when he received a call from the Income Tax Department informing him about the outstanding tax demand for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20 in the hands of the assessee company. Upon verification of the income tax portal, he realized that, the appeals filed before the CIT(A) had already been disposed of. Immediately thereafter, he contacted a senior Chartered Accountant and initiated steps for preparation and filing of the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals were filed on 20.02.2025, resulting in a delay of 692 days. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 3. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the delay was caused solely due to medical reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee company and that, there was no lack of bona fide intention or deliberate inaction on its part. In view of the facts and circumstances explained in the affidavit filed by the Director, the learned counsel for the assessee prayed that, the delay of 692 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the appeals may be admitted and decided on merits. 4. The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, Sri K. Krishna Moorthy, on the other hand, filed written submissions opposing the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that, the appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 692 days, which is well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to any pandemic- related hardship. It was further submitted that, the assessee has not filed any sworn affidavit to explain the delay or establish sufficient cause and, in the absence of such supporting evidence, Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited the petition deserves to be rejected at the outset. The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that, the reasons stated by the assessee are vague, unsubstantiated, and lacking in bona fides, and that the petition appears to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent facts. It was contended that the law on the issue is well settled that, delay cannot be condoned merely for the asking and that, the applicant must come with clean hands and show due diligence. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy Vs. Union of India [(2024) INSC 262], Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 685], Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. BHEL [(2025) INSC 533], and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector [(2024) INSC 286] to contend that, condonation of delay requires sufficient cause supported by credible evidence and cannot be granted on vague assertions. 5. The learned Sr.A.R. for the Revenue further referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, along with evidences submitted that, if we go by the medical records furnished by the assessee, they pertain to routine health issues of an individual which cannot be considered as fatal or serious medical issues which can Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited prevent any person from doing day-to-day activities, and therefore, argued that, because of his health conditions, and the statement that the assessee could not give attention to the income tax matter is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. The Learned Senior A.R for the Revenue further submitted that, condonation of delay is not a matter of right for the individual, and it is for the assessee to explain each day of delay with ‘sufficient reasonable cause’. If the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeals do not come under ‘sufficient cause’, then the Court cannot condone the delay, even if such delay is one day delay in filing of the appeal. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeals do not come under ‘sufficient reasonable cause’, and thus, the delay in filing of the appeals should not be condoned. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay of 692 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, and also the written submissions filed by the Revenue opposing the same. We find that, the reasons explained by the Director of the assessee company in his affidavit appear to be genuine and bona fide, taking note of the chronology Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited of dates and events furnished by the assessee along with the medical evidence placed on record. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower Courts to follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), there is no dispute that, if an appeal is dismissed on account of technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown out of judicial review. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the Courts must have a liberal or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the Director of the assessee company was having medical emergencies which prevented him from filing the appeal on or before the due date provided under the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, there is a ‘sufficient cause’ for the assessee for not filing appeal in time. 8. Insofar as the various case laws relied upon by the Ld. Senior A.R. for the Revenue, in our considered view, the condonation of Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited delay in filing of any appeal or petition before the Court is a discretion of the Court or Tribunal depending upon facts of the case and it cannot be based on the ratio laid down in other cases. Further, in all judgments referred to by the Revenue, the issue before the Court was the dispute between two individuals in civil or criminal matters and considering the liberty of the people and also the importance of the limitation provided under the respective statutes in filing the petition before the Court, the Courts have come to a conclusion that, condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Sr. A.R. for the Revenue cannot be considered to deny the benefit to the assessee. In view of the foregoing reasoning, and respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), and also considering the submissions of the assessee with supporting documentary Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited evidence, we condone the delay of 692 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 9. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 for A.Y 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.13,02,340/- 4. Any other grounds which the assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing with infrastructure related contracts and projects, filed its original return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 18.11.2017 admitting total income for Rs. 36,10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,12,920/- as against the returned income of the assessee vide order dated 28.06.2021 passed u/sec.153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 11. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 12. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 13,02,340/-. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and taking note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited for non-deduction and, therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained additions to the tune of Rs. 2,91,30,152/- and Rs.44,24,840/- for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. 13. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, an amount of Rs. 13,02,340/- @ 30% of total expenditure incurred towards payment to subcontractors, Shankarapally and Bathini Infra on the basis of the seized material without appreciating the fact that, the assessee had deducted TDS wherever applicable, which is evident from the relevant ledger extract of TDS payment and brought this account to the notice of the A.O. as reflected in the books of account of the assessee and found during the course of search. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to payment of advertisement expenses and interest on TDS, submitted that, the assessee has deducted TDS @ 2% on total advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same has been Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited deposited into the Government account. In respect of interest on TDS, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is not an item to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Although these facts are explained to the A.O., but the A.O. made additions without any basis. The Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply sustained the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 15. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Krishna Moorthy, K. on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, although the assessee claims to have deducted T.D.S. and paid to the Government account in respect of various expenses, but fact remains that, the assessee could not furnish any evidences before the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), which is evident from the ex parte appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the assessee failed to furnish relevant evidences for payment of T.D.S. to the Government account on or before the due date. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that, the assessee has deducted the T.D.S. and remitted the same to the Government Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited account. He, therefore, submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made additions of Rs.13,02,340/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses on the very same ground of non-deduction of TDS. 17. Insofar as the subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/-, although the assessee claims to have deducted TDS on payments wherever applicable, but on perusal of the relevant ledger accounts, we find that, although the assessee has deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which is evident from the ledger account furnished by the assessee, which is available in the seized documents at page nos. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 15 and 16. Similarly, in respect of payment to Bathini Infra, there is no dispute that, the assessee has deducted TDS of Rs. 15,152/- on total payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-, however, failed to deduct TDS on balance amount of Rs. 22,24,848/-, which is evident from the ledger extracts available at page no.15 of the seized documents. Since the assessee has not deducted TDS on the amount debited under the head subcontract expenses in the name of above two persons, and payable at the end of year, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) to sustain addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. To this extent, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 18. Insofar as the disallowance of sum of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of Rs. 1,50,000/- incurred towards advertisement expenses, on perusal of the relevant ledger account, we find that, the assessee has deducted TDS of Rs. 3,000/- @ 2% and also remitted the same to the Government account on 31.03.2017, which is evident from page numbers 16 and 88 of the Annexure A/BIPL/OFF/02. Since the assessee deducted TDS, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of advertisement Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited expenses of Rs. 45,000/- cannot be sustained. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 45,000/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 19. Insofar as the interest on TDS of Rs. 285/- is concerned, we find that, the A.O. has disallowed 30% of Rs. 285/- on the ground that, the assessee has not deducted TDS, however, fact remains that, the said amount is not a payment to subcontractors charges but only the interest paid on TDS, which is not an item of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 86/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 86/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 20. To sum up, out of the disallowance of Rs. 13,02,340/-, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 45,086/-, and the balance addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- is upheld. 21. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited ITA No.281/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 22. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellant Commissioner erred in confirming the additions made by the A.O which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of site expenses amounting to Rs.90,00,000/- 4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the additions of cash payment of Rs. 11,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.2,91,30,152/-, 6. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 23. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is addition towards ‘site expenses’ of Rs.90,00,000/-. The A.O. made additions of Rs. 90,00,000/- towards ‘site expenses’ on the basis of loose sheets as per Annexure-A/BIPL/OFF/01, Pages Nos.1 to 16, found and seized during the course of search. As per pages 11 to 13, which is Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2017-18, the net profit was shown at Rs. 1,63,60,259/-. During the search, the printout of books of account maintained in the auditor’s office was taken and seized as Annexure-A/BIPL/OFF/02, page nos.1 to Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 187, and as per the said Profit and Loss Account, the net profit was shown at Rs. 87,51,831/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs. 90,00,000/-, being the difference between Rs. 1,63,60,259/- and Rs. 87,51,831/-, on the ground that, the assessee has inflated expenditure under the head ‘site expenses’ to reduce the profit. 24. It was the arguments of the assessee before us that, the net profit shown as per the seized documents found during the course of search, which shows net profit of Rs. 1,63,60,259/-, is a provisional balance sheet and not a finalized one. The net profit of Rs. 73,96,350/- shown in the Audited Profit & Loss Account is the final net profit actually arrived by the assessee company for A.Y. 2017-18. Further, the A.O. had also made 30% disallowance of the said difference of Rs. 90,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS. Therefore, once again disallowed separately, amounting to double addition. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 25. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, during the course of search, it shows clear difference between net profit as Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited per one set of financial statements found during the course of search in the premises of the assessee and another final set of financial statements found in the office of the auditor. The assessee could not explain the said difference with relevant evidence. Therefore, the A.O. has rightly made addition of Rs.90,00,000/- towards ‘site expenses’. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be upheld. 26. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also gone through the relevant seized material relied upon by the A.O. to make additions. Upon perusal of the relevant seized material, we find that, there is a difference in net profit as per seized material vide Annexure-A/BIPL/OFF/01 found at the premises of the assessee and the seized material found in the premises of the auditor’s office as per Annexure-A/BIPL/OFF/02 for Rs. 90,00,000/-. The assessee explained the said difference and claimed that, the printouts found in the office premises of the assessee are a provisional set of financial statements, whereas the Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited printouts taken from the office of the auditor are the final set of financial statements. Further, upon perusal of the relevant seized material which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, we find that, the final set of financial statements contains certain financial entries and year-end adjustments which resulted in reduction of profit for the year ending 31.03.2017. However, the A.O. considered only the provisional financial statements found during the course of search and has not considered the explanation of the assessee with regard to reduction in profit. Since the net profit shown in the financial statements found in the premises of the auditor is the correct financial statement which reflects the true and correct financial position of the assessee, in our considered view, additions cannot be made solely on the basis of provisional financial statements. Further, as claimed by the learned counsel for the assessee, the A.O. had already made additions of 30% of the sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- towards ‘site expenses’ for non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act separately. Therefore, once again making additions on the basis of seized documents is incorrect. Since the assessee is able to reconcile the difference by filing relevant evidence, in our Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited considered view, the additions made by the A.O. on the basis of provisional financial statements cannot be upheld. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made towards ‘site expenses’. 27. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is addition towards unexplained expenditure of Rs. 11,90,000/-. During the course of search proceedings, hard disk vide A/BIPL/OFF/04 was seized from the premises of the assessee. Excel sheets stored in the above hard disk were taken printouts and examined. It is noticed from the excel sheets that the assessee has made certain cash payments for repairing the lorry, JCB, and Hydra, and also payment for purchase of JCB, Crane and Truck. The A.O. called upon the assessee to explain the transactions with respect to books of account maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee failed to prove the above cash payments were recorded in the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 11,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act and brought to tax under Section Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the A.O. 28. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 11,90,000/- u/s 69C of the Act, on the basis of printout taken from the hard disk seized during the course of the search in the premises of the assessee marked as Annexure- A/BIPL/OFF/04, even though said document does not show any payment in cash to Shri Yadavaa Reddy for the purpose of repairing three vehicles and also cash payment for repair expenses of new purchased vehicles like Lorry, JCB, etc and Crane. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the A.O. also failed to bring on record any evidences to correlate the seized documents and relevant expenditure which is evident from the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the documents found during the course of search show certain cash payments for repair of vehicles and purchase of new vehicles. The assessee could not explain the said cash payments with reference to the books of account maintained for the relevant assessment year. Since the expenditure incurred in cash is outside the books of account and also unexplained, the A.O. has rightly treated said expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 30. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant seized material vide Annexure A/BIPL/OFF/04. The A.O. made addition of Rs. 11,90,000/- under Section 69C of the Act, on the basis of printouts taken from the hard disk seized during the course of search in the premises of the assessee marked as Annexure- A/BIPL/OFF/04. The assessee has paid an amount of Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited Rs.1,50,000/- to Shri Yadava Reddy for the purpose of repairing three vehicles. The A.O. further noticed that, the assessee has paid sum of Rs.40,000/- for repairs of new purchased vehicles like Lorry, JCB etc. Similarly, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had paid sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to Khajamoinali Khan for purchase of 3 vehicles. Although, the A.O. refers to seized material, but the assessee claims that, the seized material referred to by the A.O. is not emanating from the documents found during the course of search. The assessee further claimed that, in the said seized material, there is no evidence for payment to Yadava Reddy for the purpose of repairing vehicles and also to Kajamoinali Khan for purchase of three vehicles. We find that, although the A.O. referred to the payment made in cash for the purpose of repairs and purchase of new vehicles, but failed to record any details as to when the said payment has been made by the assessee company. There is no corroborative evidence other than the printout taken from hard disk. Since the A.O. could not link the seized material to the alleged expenditure, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A), without properly appreciating the relevant facts, sustained the addition. Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on subcontract works. The A.O. disallowed Rs. 2,91,31,153/- @ 30% of the expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment to Bathini Infra of Rs. 5,47,454/-, Rs.4,13,765/- incurred towards subcontract payment to Shankarapally, Rs. 2,76,00,000/- incurred towards subcontractor works, Rs. 32,420/- incurred towards Freight and Forwarding charges, Rs. 5,06,515/- incurred towards machinery hire charges, and Rs. 30,000/- incurred towards audit fee. The A.O. has referred to the payments made by the assessee without deducting TDS under the respective provisions of the Act in para 6.7 of his order and claimed that the assessee has made the above payments without deducting TDS applicable under the law and therefore disallowed 30% of the said expenditure and made additions of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 32. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract payments to Bathini Infra, submitted that, the above payments are opening balance brought forward from the previous Financial Year 2016-17, on which the A.O. had already made disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, once again making disallowance of the said amount for the year under consideration is amounting to double addition, which is not permissible under the law. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, in respect of subcontract works of Rs. 9,20,00,000/-, on which the A.O. made 30% disallowance of Rs. 2,76,00,000/-, the assessee had passed a duplicate entry in the books of account by increasing the income and corresponding expenditure to show better financial results for the purpose of showing increased turnover to the bank. However, the said subcontract works do not relate to any payment to the party for executing the works. Similarly, the assessee increased the revenue under the head Hindupur Project, Medak Earth Work and Work in Progress. Iin fact, it is not the actual payment made by the assessee to any party for application of provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Although, these facts have been Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited explained to the A.O., but the A.O. simply made 30% disallowance at the expenditures on the basis of documents found during the course of search, being the financial statements of the assessee. 33. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to disallowance of freight and forwarding charges, machinery hire charges and audit fee, submitted that, the assessee has incurred the above expenditure and the total sum paid to a single person does not exceed the monetary limit specified under Section 194C/194J of the Act for deduction of TDS and therefore, the question of disallowance of the said payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not correct. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 34. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, as per the documents found during the course of search, there is a clear case of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act, for various payments made by the assessee, including the payments made for subcontract works, payment of freight and forwarding charges, machinery hire charges, and audit fee. Although the Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited assessee claims that, the subcontract works amounting to Rs. 9.20 crore is a dummy entry and the same has been subsequently reversed, but going by the evidence available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee has incurred expenditure for subcontract payments which attract provisions under Section 194C of the Act. Since the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on various payments, the A.O. has rightly disallowed 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 35. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. has disallowed sum of Rs. 2,91,30,153/- @ 30% of Rs. 9,71,00,510/- towards various expenditure incurred for subcontract payments, freight and forwarding charges, machinery hire charges, and audit fee. The A.O. has disallowed 30% of Rs. 18,24,848/-, being subcontract payments made to Bathini Infra on the ground that, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the said payment. Similarly, the A.O. has made 30% disallowance on Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited sum of Rs. 13,79,215/-, paid to subcontractor Shankarapally. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that, the above two amounts represent the outstanding trade payables to the subcontractors towards expenditure incurred in the earlier financial years and therefore, the same cannot be considered for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS. We find from the ledger account filed by the assessee, which is available in page number 106 of A1/BIPL/OFF/02, and as per the said ledger account, the assessee had not incurred any expenditure under the head subcontract payments to Bathini Infra, which is evident from the relevant ledger account where the assessee has made payments for opening balance of the subcontractor. 36. Similarly, in respect of subcontract payment to Shankarapally during the financial year, there is no expenditure incurred towards payment made to subcontractors and whatever payments made by the assessee are towards outstanding balance payable to the above said subcontractors. Since the A.O. has already made disallowance towards expenditure incurred for making payment to subcontractors, Bathini Infra and Shankarapally for the Financial Printed from counselvise.com 29 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited Year 2016-17 relevant for the A.Y. 2017-18, and the same has been upheld by us, once again making disallowance on the opening trade payables to the above parties under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, is incorrect. Since the payments made to the above two parties are only trade payables and not actual expenditure incurred by the assessee towards subcontract payments, in our considered view, the above two payments cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non- deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards disallowance of subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37. Insofar as the disallowance of sum of Rs. 2,76,00,000/- @ 30% of subcontract works for Rs. 9,20,00,000/-, we find that, the assessee has increased revenue and also expenditure by passing dummy entries for Rs. 9,20,00,000/- in the books of account without there being any actual payment to any party for carrying out the works, which is evident from the relevant seized document Annexure A/BIPL/OFF/02, which is available at page numbers Printed from counselvise.com 30 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 183, 135, 128, 101, 112, and 113 of the seized documents. The assessee has increased the subcontract works under the head Hindupur Project, Medak Earthwork Project and the subcontract works, with a corresponding increase in the revenue under the heads Hindupur Project, Medak Earthwork and Work in Progress. Upon perusal of the relevant ledger accounts, we find that, the assessee has passed dummy entry in the books of account towards revenue and expenditure without there being any actual payment to any party for application of provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Since the expenditure shown under the head subcontract works for Rs. 9,20,00,000/- is nothing but a dummy entry or fictitious entry in the books of account of the assessee without there being any actual payment to any person for carrying out the works, in our considered view, the above payment cannot be subject to TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Since the above payment does not fall under the provisions of Section 194C of the Act, in our considered view, the A.O. has erred in disallowing 30% of the amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 2,76,00,000/- made Printed from counselvise.com 31 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited towards 30% disallowance of subcontract works for Rs. 9,20,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 38. Coming back to the remaining expenditure incurred under the head freight and forwarding charges, machinery hire charges, and audit fee. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 1,08,068/- towards freight and forwarding charges. Similarly, the assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 16,88,379/- towards machinery hire charges and also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards audit fee. It is also an admitted fact that, for the above said expenditure, the assessee has not deducted TDS under Section 194C of the Act in respect of freight and forwarding charges. Although the assessee claims that, the expenditure incurred under the above heads do not exceed the monetary limit specified under Section 194C of the Act, but failed to file any evidences. Since there is no dispute with regard to non- deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act in respect of freight and forwarding charges, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the A.O. to disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 32 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28,206/- and the same has been remitted to the Government account on or before the due date. We find that, the assessee has furnished ledger account of TDS paid on machinery hire charges, and as per the ledger account, which is available at page 105 of the assessee’s paper book, the assessee has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28,206/- and also paid on 05.05.2017, 06.06.2017, and 07.07.2017. Since the assessee has deducted TDS and paid to the Central Government account in respect of the above expenditure, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. @ 30% of Rs. 16,88,379/- cannot be upheld. Thus, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 5,06,514/- made towards machinery hire charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 40. Similarly, in respect of audit fee, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee has not deducted TDS on said payment. The only argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that, the auditor has furnished return of income for the relevant assessment years and also paid taxes on the income, however, the assessee failed to furnish the ITR filed by the auditor Printed from counselvise.com 33 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited to prove his contentions. Since the assessee has not deducted TDS on audit fee under Section 194J of the Act, and also failed to file relevant ITR filed by the auditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance of audit fee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be upheld. Therefore, we uphold the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made towards disallowance of audit fee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 41. To sum up, out of the total disallowance of Rs. 2,91,30,153/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 2,90,67,733/- and the balance amount of Rs. 62,420/- is upheld. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2018-19 is partly allowed. ITA No. 282 /Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20 43. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in adding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- being cash seized u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.44,24,840/- Printed from counselvise.com 34 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 4. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 44. Coming back to Assessment Year 2019-20, the first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards cash found and seized during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. During the course of search on 27.09.2018, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-, where the found and seized in the premises of the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of cash found during the course of search. The assessee did not furnish any explanation with regard to the source of cash found and seized during the course of search. Therefore, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 45. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act, towards cash found during the course of search, without appreciating the fact that, as on the date of search, the cash book of the assessee was not updated, and Printed from counselvise.com 35 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited further, the assessee had sufficient cash balance as on the date of search, which is evident from the relevant cash book prepared by the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the Department found and seized cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-, whereas the assessee has drawn cash of Rs. 49,24,000/- during the period from 01.04.2018 to 27.09.2018 on various dates and the same has not been updated in the cash book. Since the updated cash book shows sufficient cash balance to explain cash found during the course of search, the A.O. ought not to have made addition towards cash found during the course of search under Section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant facts, simply sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 46. The learned senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that, the assessee could not explain the cash found during the course of search with the relevant cash book maintained for the assessment year under consideration. Although the assessee claims that, as per the updated cash book, sufficient cash balance is available, but fact remains that, the said Printed from counselvise.com 36 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited cash book was prepared after the date of search and as such, the authenticity of the cash book cannot be accepted. Since the assessee could not explain the source of cash found during the course of search, the A.O. has rightly made addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be upheld. 47. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, during the course of search, sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was found and seized from the premises of the assessee. The assessee explained the source for the cash found during the course of search out of cash withdrawals made from bank accounts from 01.04.2018 to 27.09.2018 and claimed that, the assessee has withdrawn cash from bank on various dates and the same has not been brought on record as on the date of search. We find that, the search was conducted on 27.09.2018 and at the time of search, the financial year was not ended for closure of books of account of the assessee. Since the financial year was not ended at the time of search and the assessee claims that, the cash book was not Printed from counselvise.com 37 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited updated as on the date of search, in our considered view, the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash found during the course of search out of cash withdrawals from bank account needs to be accepted. As the assessee had sufficient cash withdrawals from the very same bank account on various dates and further, as per the updated cash book, sufficient cash balance of Rs. 5,01,565/- was available, which is more than the amount of cash found during the course of search, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. towards cash found during the course of search cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant facts, simply sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. 48. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. Printed from counselvise.com 38 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish details of TDS deducted on various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee failed to furnish relevant details of TDS deducted on various expenses, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 2,23,33,770/- @ 30% of subcontract works of Rs. 7,44,45,893/- and added the same under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 51. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted relevant details and argued that the A.O. had disallowed 30% of subcontract works of Rs. 7,44,45,893/- on the basis of trade payables shown in the Balance Sheet without considering the actual expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss Account. The assessee further contended that, the subcontract expenses considered by the A.O. on the basis of seized material includes payments made for purchase of sand, cement, steel and other materials, etc. Printed from counselvise.com 39 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 52. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the relevant arguments of the assessee, directed the A.O. to consider only the expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss Account for the purpose of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. The A.O. has passed the order giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and out of the total disallowance of Rs. 2,23,33,770/-, finally restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 44,24,840/- @ 30% of site expenses of Rs. 1,47,49,468/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 53. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that, the above payment includes payments made for purchase of sand, cement, steel and other materials at site and also payments made to daily labour at work site and the same is outside the purview of provisions of Section 194C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further referring to various details submitted that, the above payment includes payment made for purchase of materials. However, the A.O., without considering the relevant facts, simply Printed from counselvise.com 40 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited made the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 54. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the A.O. has passed the order giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the additions made by the A.O. wherever the assessee could furnish details of expenses and TDS deducted thereon. Further, in respect of expenditure incurred without deduction of TDS, the A.O. has rightly disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and thus, the addition made by the A.O. should be sustained. 55. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. had made addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, being 30% of site expenses of Rs. 1,47,49,468/- debited to the Profit and Loss Account on the ground that, the assessee failed to deduct TDS on the said Printed from counselvise.com 41 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited expenditure. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that, the expenditure incurred under the head ‘site expenses’ is nothing but payment made for purchase of sand, cement, steel and other materials at work site and also payments made to daily labour at the work site and the same is outside the scope of provisions of Section 194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) has given directions to the A.O. to verify the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards subcontract expenses on the claim that, the above expenditure includes outstanding payable to the subcontractors and also purchase of materials. Further, during the course of proceedings giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. verified the details furnished by the assessee and has allowed relief wherever the assessee has furnished relevant details of expenditure with TDS particulars. However, wherever the assessee could not furnish relevant details, the A.O. has sustained the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- @ 30% of site expenses of Rs. 1,47,49,468/- on the ground that, the assessee could not furnish relevant evidence of TDS deducted on said expenditure. It was the only explanation of the assessee that the above expenditure relates to payment made Printed from counselvise.com 42 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited for purchase of sand, steel, cement and other materials. Although the assessee claims that, the above expenditure relates to purchase of materials and payments made to labour, but failed to furnish relevant details of purchases with supporting bills and vouchers. Since the assessee has failed to furnish the details of purchase of materials and payments made to daily labour at worksites, in our considered view, the disallowance of site expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act @ 30% of expenditure for non-deduction of TDS should be upheld. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and sustain additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of ‘site expenses’ of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 56. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 43 ITA Nos.280 to 282/Hyd/2025 Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited 57. To sum up, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th November, 2025. Sd/- श्री विजय पाल राि (VIJAY PAL RAO) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (मंजूिधथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 26.11.2025. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Bhupal Infrastructure Private Limited, 8-2- 293/82/a/1355, G.1, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "