SHAKUNTALA ASHOK VYAS , MUMBAI V. ITO - 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1898/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4045 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA No.1898/Mum/2020 A.Y.2012-13 Shakuntala Ashok Vyas Vs. ITO-19(3)(3) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1898/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shakuntala Ashok Vyas 17, Ground Floor, Labh Niwas, 33, Khetwadi, 4 th Lane, Mumbai- 400 004 Vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(3)(3), Matru Mandir, Mumbai - 400007 लेख सं./ज आइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ACAPV6232B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : B.K. Bagchi Date of Hearing 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-53, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us: “1. The order dated 04/09/2020 bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2020- 21/1027896568[1] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble CIT[A]-53, Mumbai, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT [A] has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 50,98,618/- on account ITA No.1898/Mum/2020 A.Y.2012-13 Shakuntala Ashok Vyas Vs. ITO-19(3)(3) 2 of labour charges paid by the appellant even though the appellant has discharged onus on her with proper documentary evidences available with her. 3. The appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal.” 2. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income at Rs.9,57,200/- was filed on 20.09.2012. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.08.2013. The assessee was engaged in the business of construction. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed that assessee has claimed labour charges of Rs.3,73,80,996/-. On verification of the detail filed by the assessee the A.O noticed that the following three labour parties were shown as existed on the same address which is as under: Name of the contractor PAN Address Amount Mukesh Rathod ACFPR1772F Room No. 10, Building No. 119-123, 3rd, Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400 004 Rs.5,20,000 Rajaram Mali ARGPM9737P Room No. 10, Building No. 119-123, 3rd, Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400 004 Rs.16,62,418 Shivkesh Vyas AGSPV3231A Room No. 10, Building No. 119-123, 3rd, Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400 004 Rs.6,50,000 Total 28,32,418 On further verification, the A.O found that the aforesaid place was occupied by the assessee along with her husband. The A.O has also noticed that the assessee has failed to furnish the addresses of the following 4 parties to whom the labour charges were paid as under: Name of the contractor PAN Address Amount Bholaram Chowdhary ALGPC6944A Rs.3,30,000 Udaybhan Sahani BCJPS5282A Rs.6,90,500 Gopal Yadav AGKPY0635P Rs.6,95,700 Zahir Alam AAVPZ4091K Rs.5,50,000 Total Rs.22,66,200 ITA No.1898/Mum/2020 A.Y.2012-13 Shakuntala Ashok Vyas Vs. ITO-19(3)(3) 3 The A.O pointed out that assessee has also not substantiated the services rendered by the aforesaid sub-contractor along with documentary evidences even they have not filed the return of income. Therefore, the A.O has disallowed the amount of Rs.50,98,618/- claimed as labour charges and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as discussed above in this order the A.O has made disallowance of Rs.50,98,618/- out of labour charges because the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of such expenditure. Out of said disallowance an amount of Rs.28,32,418/- was the labour charges pertained to 3 parties i.e Mr. Mukesh Rathod, Mr. Rajaram Mali and Mr. Shivkesh Vyas and their residential addresses were shown at the premises occupied by the assessee and her husband. The labour charges amounting to Rs.22,66,200/- were shown as paid to other 4 parties namely Mr. Bholaram Chowdhary, Mr. Udaybhan Sahani, Mr. Gopal Yadav & Mr. Zahir Alam. The ld. CIT(A) has stated in the detailed findings that assessee has not provided any evidence suchas copies of their Aadhar Card, Voter’s Card, driving license, return of income etc, from where the identity of the person could be made out. The assessee has also not provided copies of bank statement of those aforesaid 7 persons to prove that payment have been actually received by them. The ld. CIT(A) has also stated that residential addresses of Shri Mukesh Chand Rathod, Shri Rajaram Mali and Shri Shivkesh Vyas happened to be at the premises belonging to assessee’s husband Shri Ashok Vyas. Net Profit shown by the assessee was 1.3% on a total turnover. The ld. CIT(A) ITA No.1898/Mum/2020 A.Y.2012-13 Shakuntala Ashok Vyas Vs. ITO-19(3)(3) 4 has given the detailed findings holding that assessee has failed to justify the labour charges paid to 7 persons with cogent evidence. No material is brought on record by the assessee to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22.04.2022 PS: Rohit आदेश की े /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आय / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ( ) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभ ग य िति िध, आयकर य िधकरण, हमद ब द / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग $% फ ई / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स ािपत ित //True Copy// (Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai