Mangesh Vasant Parulekar, Raigad V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1336/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9651 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SABANA PARVEEN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , . ! , ' , # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM $ / ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 % & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MANGESH VASANT PARULEKAR, C/O. M.P. BUILDERS, S-2, VAIBHAV, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD, PANVEL-410 206, DIST. RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA. PAN : AATPP5377L .... / APPELLANT '% / V/S. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL RANGE, PANVEL. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. SABANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2018 ( / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, THANE DATED 29.07 .2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, 2 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- AS AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BROKERAGE PAYMENT WIT HOUT APPRECIATING A FACT THAT- I) THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CROSSED CHEQUES. II) THE TDS HAD BEEN MADE AND NAMES, ADDRESS AND PA NS OF THE BROKERS WERE AVAILABLE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DELETING AD-HOC ADD ITION OF RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF PURCHASES AND ALSO ERRED IN GI VING PART RELIEF OF RS.2,50,000/- ONLY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN AD-HOC AD DITIONS MADE BY WAY OF AND ON LUMPSUM BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF RS.7,70, 000/- OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING A FACT THAT I) ALL THESE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECTED TO TDS. II) THE CONTRACTORS, THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, PAN WERE AVAILABLE AND BASIC REQUIREMENT. III) THE LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED PERTAINED TO PIECE WORK ALLOTTED LIKE ELECTRIC WORK, PLUMBING, FLOORING ETC. AND THERE WE RE NOT TOWARDS CASUAL LABOURS ON SITE WHICH EVEN ARE MOSTLY SUPPOR TED BY VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR OMIT OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M.P. DEVELOPERS AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.201 1 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,29,22,464/-. DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR AT RS.3,54,67,464/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDIT IONS /DISALLOWANCES : I) DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED BROKERAGE - RS.12,00,000/- II) DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASE RS.5,00,000/- III) DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE LABOUR CHARGES RS.7,70,000- 3 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 IV) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS.75,000/- 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). 5. DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ON THE ISSUE OF ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.66,05,975/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD B ROKERAGE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES, COPIES OF AGREEMENT, NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED, AMOUNT OF BUSINESS HANDLED, RATE OF BROKERAGE PAID, BASIS AND WORKIN G OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF EACH PERSON. BUT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE BASIS AS WELL AS WORKING OF THE ABOVE BROKERAGE PAID. ACC ORDINGLY, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AD-HOC BASED ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/-. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF PARA 7.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD . 5.1 WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/-, CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,55,648/- UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASE ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VO UCHERS, CONFIRMATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EACH PURCHASE. THEREAFTER, VIDE O RDER SHEET NOTING DATED 28.07.2015, THE LD. AR REQUESTED FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% I.E. RS.2,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.5,00,000/- DISALLOWED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) OPINED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH VERIFIABLE ADDRESSES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EAC H PURCHASE, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT OPEN FOR VERIFICATION IN FULL. ACCO RDINGLY, CIT(A) 4 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,50,000/- OUT OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PARA 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD . 5.2 WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,70,000/- OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.77,08,855/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT, UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS ALONG WITH PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, AGREEMENTS WITH CON TRACTORS, CONFIRMATION FROM CONTRACTORS, AND CONFIRMATION OF LEDGER AC COUNT. BUT THE ASSESSEE SHOWS HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME. ACCORDI NGLY, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 28.07.2015, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THA T THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT. EVENTUALLY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT S INCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE PROPER SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR C AUSAL LABOUR PAYMENTS, CONFIRMATION FROM CONTRACTORS REGARDING LABOUR P AYMENTS, COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH CONTRACTORS, THEREFORE , REASONABLENESS O F THE SAME CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,70,000/- OUT O F RS.77,08,855/-. PARA 9 OF APPELLATE ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APP EAL BEFORE US BY RAISING GROUNDS AS EXTRACTED ABOVE. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 7. HEARING OF NOTICE WAS ISSUED INITIALLY ON 25.09.2017 FOR 21 .11.2017. THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS POSTE D FOR HEARING ON 14.02.2018. ON THE SAID DATE, ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT LE TTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ANNOUNCING THE DATE IN OPEN CO URT AND POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 18.04.2018. NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD . ON THE SAID DATE OF 5 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 HEARING I.E. ON 18.04.2018, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.06.2018, 19.09.2018 AND 28.11.2018 RESPECTIVELY. EVEN ON THE DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARS TO REPRESENT ITS CAS E. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE H IS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERING SIMPLICITY OF THE FACTS AND ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE ADJUDICATED W ITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CON SIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED BROKERAGE OF RS.12,00,00 0/-, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.66,05,975/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD BROKERAGE EXPENSE S. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS BROKERAG E EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 7.2. FOR THE SAKE OF C OMPLETENESS, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 7.2 IN COMPLIANCE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH THE BASIS AS WELL AS WORKING OF THE ABOVE BROKERAGE PAID TO HIS ELDER BR OTHERS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FAMILY MEMBER ARE NOTHING BUT DIVERSION OF TAXABLE PROFIT IN DIFFERENT HANDS, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN ENTIRETY , THE PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THIS HEAD ARE NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LACHMINARAYAN MADAN LA L V. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AGENTS FOR PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS COMMISSION, ASSUMING THERE WAS SUCH PAYMENT, THAT DOES NOT BIND THE INCOME- T AX OFFICER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSIN ESS. IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SUCH AN AGREEMENT IN EXIST ENCE AND THE PAYMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE, IT IS STILL OPEN TO THE INCOME TAX 6 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DETERM INE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE COMMISSION SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID IS PR OPERLY DEDUCTIBLE. IN THIS CASE ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS 'BEEN BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAD PROCURED ANY ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PRODUCTIO N OF HILLS OR PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT-PAYEE CHEQUES CANNOT BY ITSELF SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAD PROCU RED ANY ORDER FOR THE ASSESSEE. NO CORRESPONDENCE.. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE D ISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE AMOUNTING TO RS.12,00,000/-, OUT OF RS.66 ,05,975/-, IS HEREBY SUSTAINED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS KEPT ON HIM IN THE MATTERS RELATING FURNISH ING OF EVIDENCES, PRODUCING THE PARTIES, ESTABLISHING THAT THE PAYMENTS MAD E ARE NOT EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. NONE WAS PRESENT BEFORE US TO DISCHARGE SUCH ONUS DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 8.1 REGARDING THE NEXT ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS.5,00,0 00/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,55,648/- UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASE ACCO UNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH VERIFIABLE ADDRESSES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EACH PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) DISCU SSED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 8. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UN DER: 8. GROUND NO 3 RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS 5,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS 1,00,55,648/- DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS DEBITED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 1,00,55,648/- UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASE ACCOUNT. IN COMPLIANCE, THE APPELLANT FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS, ALONG WITH BILLS AND V OUCHERS AGAINST THESE PURCHASES. ON VERIFICATION OF THESE DETAILS 1 PURCHASES, THE AO NOTICED THAT 7 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 SOME OF THE PURCHASES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY VERIFIAB LE VOUCHERS AND ALSO NOTICED THAT SOME THE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRE D IN CASH. IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFIABLE VOUCHERS AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES, THE AO RESORTED TO DISALLOW RS 5,00,000/-, ON LUMPSUM BASIS, OUT OF ABOVE PURCHASES AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS, CONFIRMATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. IN COMPLIANCE, THE LD. AR HAD SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THESE DETAILS WITH THE PLEA TH AT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EACH PURCHASE. ACCORDING LY VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DTD. 28.07.2015, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO 50% I.E. RS 2,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS 5,00,000/- IS ALLO WED BY THE AO. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FI NDINGS OF THE AO, SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO FURNISH VERIFIABLE ADDRESSES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATIO N IN RESPECT OF EACH PURCHASE, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT OPEN FOR VERI FICATION IN FULL. THE AT) HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS, AS SUCH DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS APPEAR TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE AND THEREFORE, RESTRICT ED TO RS. 2,50,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,50,000/- OUT OF RS 5,00,000/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND BALANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCES ARE NOT SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE. THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN CASH. FURTHER, ASSESSEE GAVE IN WRITING THAT T HE CONFIRMATION OF THE EXPENDITURE IS DIFFICULT. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 8.2 REGARDING THE OTHER ADDITION OF RS. 7,70,000/- , WE HEAR D LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CLAIM OF LABO UR CHARGES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.77,08,855/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSES SEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF EACH CASUAL LABOUR/CO NTRACTORS TO WHOM LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION FROM 8 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 CONTRACTORS REGARDING LABOUR PAYMENTS AND ALSO FAILED TO FILE THE COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH CONTRACTORS ETC. ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRIC TED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.7,70,000/- I.E.10% OF THE CLAIM. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES AND DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARA 9 OF HIS ORD ER. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. GROUND NO. 4 RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,70,0 00/- OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES : DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS DEBITED AN AMOUN T OF RS 77,08,855/-, IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR CHARGES'. IN C OMPLIANCE, THE APPELLANT FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS, ALONG WI TH BILLS AND VOUCHERS, AGAINST THESE LABOUR PAYMENTS. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT A LL THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECTED TO TDS, DETAILS SUCH AS NAME; ADDRESSES A ND PAN OR CONTRACTORS ARE AVAILABLE, LABOUR CHARGES ARE INCURRED FOR WORK S LIKE ELECTRIC WORK, PLUMBING FLOORING ETC. ON VERIFICATION OF THESE DE TAILS PURCHASES, THE AO NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY VERIFIABLE VOUCHERS AND ALSO NOTICED THAT SOME THE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CASH . IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFIABLE VOUCHERS AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THE AO RESORTED TO DISALLOW R S 7,70,000/- I.E. @ 10%, ON LUMP SUM BASIS OUT OF F TOTAL LABOUR CHARGE S OR RS 77,06,855/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS, ALON G WITH PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, AGREEMENTS WITH CONTRACTORS, CONFIRMATION FROM CONTRACTORS, AND CONFIRMATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. IN COMPLIANCE, THE LD. AK HAD SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THESE DETAILS WITH THE PLEA TH AT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EACH CASUAL LABOUR/CONTR ACTORS TO WHOM THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID. ACCORDINGLY, VIDE ORDER S HEET NOTING DTD. 28.07.2018, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE DISALLOWA NCE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF AO, SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND MATERIAL PLACED ON REC ORD. SINCE THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE PROPER SUPPORTIN G VOUCHERS FOR CASUAL LABOUR PAYMENTS, CONFIRMATION FROM CONTRACTORS REGA RDING LABOUR PAYMENTS, COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH CONTRACTORS, THERE FORE, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SAME CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. K EEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES, AMOUNTING TO RS.7,70,000/-, OUT OF RS.77,08,855/-, IS QUITE REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, SUSTAINED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. UN-VERIFIABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE AND OFF-BANK TRANSACTIONS ARE THE REASONS FOR THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS, ALONG WITH PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, AGREEMENTS WITH CONTRACTORS, C ONFIRMATION FROM 9 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 CONTRACTORS, CONFIRMATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT ETC. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENC E. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED . 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( / SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( . ! / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SB ()*+,-.-+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, THANE. 4. THE PR. CIT-2, THANE. 5. %&' () , * () , +,- , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // * 2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- /PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE. 10 ITA NO. 1336/PUN/2015 A.Y.2011-12 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 06 .12.2018 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10 .12.2018 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER