The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V. Shri Kamleshbhai Baldevbhai Patel, Gandhinagar

ITA 2045/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO S . 2045 AND 2046 / AHD /201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 5 - 06 & 2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI K AMLESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL, WARD - 2, GANDHINAGAR. PLOT NO.14, KISHAN NAGAR, SECTOR - 26, GANDHINAGAR. [PAN A BOPP 6878 J ] IT A NO. 1796 /AHD/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 SHRI KAMLESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL, VS. INCOME T AX OFFICER, PLOT NO.14, KISHAN NAGAR, WARD - 2, GANDHINAGAR. SECTOR - 26, GANDHINAGAR. [PAN A BOPP 6878 J ] (APPELLANT S) (RESPONDENT S ) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEA RING : 2 8 . 01 .201 6 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 . 0 2 .2016 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA , J.M. THIS IS A BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS. THE REVENUE HAS FILED ITA NO.2045/AHD/2012 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , GANDHINAGAR IN CASE APPEAL N O .CIT(A)/GNR/139/2011 - 12 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 10 THE ACT ). THE LATTER A.Y. 2009 - 10 INVOLVES ASSESSEE S APPEAL ITA NO.1796/AHD/2012 AND REVENUE S CROSS APPEAL THERETO ITA NO.2046/AHD/2012 ARISING FROM ORDER DATED 14.06.2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR IN CASE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)/GNR/138/ 2011 - 12 IN PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. CASES CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEE S BEHEST DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX - PARTE. WE PROCEED ASSESSMENT YEAR - WISE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 - REV ENUE S A PPEAL ITA NO. 2045/AHD/2012 . 3. THE REVENUE S TWIN SUBSTANTIVE GROUN D RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGE THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER QUASHING REASSESSMENT ON LEGALITY ISSUE AS WELL AS DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF JOB WORK CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.52,2 6,000/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT QUOTING FAILURE IN DEDUCTING TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ON MERITS. 4. WE COME TO FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE/AN INDIVIDUAL IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN ELECTRICAL WORKS. HE FIELD HIS RETURN ON 25.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,80,860/ - . THE A SSESSING OFFICER CO MPLETED REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 18.12.2007 ASSESSING THE SAME. THEREAFTER , HE FOUND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE S INCOME LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT SINCE HIS TOTAL TURNOVER RECEIPTS EXCEEDED MONITORY LIMITS PROVIDED U NDER SECTION 44AB AND HE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON JOB WORK CHARGES DEBITED TO THE TUNE OF ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 10 RS. 52,26,478/ - U NDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THIS MADE HIM TO ISSUE SECTION 148 NOTICE DATED 23.07.2010. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT FOR REOPENING REASONS. HE FURTHER REITERATED THE ORIGINA L INCOME RETURNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED THE SAME. HE WENT ON TO COMPLETE THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ON 20.12.2011 DISALLOWING THE ABOVE STATED JOB WORK CHARGES FOR FAILURE OF DEDUCTING TDS BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL INTER ALIA CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF REOPENING AS WELL AS POSING CHALLENGE TO THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCE OF JOB WORK CHARGES ON MERITS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS QUASHED THE IMPUGNED REOPENING AND ALSO DELETED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANC E ON MERITS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 6. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST VALIDITY OF PASSING REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.147 R.W. 143(3). THE APPELLANT HAS BASICALLY DISPUTED THE REOPENING ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : I) THE CASE IS OF REOPENING BEYOND 4 YEARS WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS APPLICABLE AND NO CASE CAN BE REOPENED UNLESS THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. II) THE RELEVA NT EXPENSES WERE CONSIDERED AND VERIFIED BY T HE THEN AO IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN. THIS I S A CLEAR CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. III) THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED NOT ON LOGICAL BELIEF BUT ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND SUR M ISES WHICH ARE NOT TRUE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING, THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 4 OF 10 PASS ED U/S. 143(3) , THE AUDIT REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE LAW RELATED TO THE ISSUE. I FIND T HAT IT IS TRUE THAT THE CA S E IS OF REOPENING BEYOND 4 YEARS WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS APPLICABLE AND NO CASE CAN BE REOPENED UNLESS T HERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE REASONS RECORDED, ARE REPRODUCED EARLIER IN PARA 3.1 . ON A PLAIN READING OF THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN WHISPER AS REGARDS A NY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT. THE REOPENING IS HELD INVALID IN SUCH CASES INCLUDING BY THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARLE SALES & SERVICES (P.) LTD. 2 0 TAXMANN.COM 753; WEL INTERTRADE (P.) LTD. (DELHI) 308 ITR 22 ; DULI CHAND SINGHANIA V. ASSTT. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 192 (P&H); MULTI - SCREEN MEDIA LTD. (BOM) 324 ITR 48, BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. 272 ITR 154 (RAJ), HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED 268 ITR 332 (BOM). THE O NLY INFORMATION THE AO HAS RELIED ON WHILE FORMING T HE BELIEF IS THE P&L ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALREADY WITH THE AO BEING PART OF T HE RETU R N FILED. FURTHER, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE THEN AO HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF TH E VERY EXPENSES QUESTIONED WHILE REOPENING THE CASE. HE HAD ALSO COMMENTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THESE HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKE IT APPARENT THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN TH E ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS : THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE OF RS.45,35,816 DURING THE YEAR AND PAID JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.52,26,478/ - . (PARA.5, PAGE - 2) ON VERIFICATION OF THE P&L THE EXPENS E S DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERIFIED FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS GIV EN (PARA.7, PAGE - 2) THE EXPENSES DEBITED ARE VERIFIED AND ALLOWED. (PARA.7, PAGE - 2) ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 5 OF 10 BESIDES, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED. THERE IS A SPECIFIC COLUMN FOR REPORTING CONTRAVENTIONS OF PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS IN THE AUDIT REPORT. THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN THE AUDIT R E PORT WHICH IS CLEAR FROM HIS COMMENTS IN PARA.4, PAGE - 2 OF THE ORDER. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ALSO AND THE REOPENING IS MERE CHANGE OF O PINION AND IS NO T LEGAL [KELVINATOR INDIA LTD . (SC) 321 ITR 561] . EVEN OTHERWISE, THE BELIEF FORMED IN REOPENING IS BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND NOT ON MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. HOW THE AO COULD HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TDS WAS DEDUCIBLE JUST BECAUSE T HE TOTAL EXPENSE UNDER A HEAD WERE SUBSTANTIAL. THE DEDUCTION OF TDS WOULD REQUIRE CONDITIONS LIKE PAYMENT BEYOND A PARTICULAR LIMIT WHICH THE AO HAD NOT IN HIS POSSESSION CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST AND CANNOT BE DEEMED TO EXIST, BELIEF SHOULD BE HONEST AND NOT BASED ON SUSPICION, GOSSIP OR CONJECTURE; EAST WEST COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. 128 ITR 326 (CAL) . THE BELIEF OF THE AO IS HELD BASED ON SUSPICION AND CONJECTURE AND IS NOT BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID ON T HIS GROUND ALSO. THEREFO R E, THE REOPENING IS HELD INVALID ON ALL THE THREE COUNTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I.E. THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND MATERIAL FACTS NOR WAS FAILURE MENTIONED OR WAS DIS CERNABLE FROM THE REASONS RECORDED; THE CASE IS OF MERE CHA NGE OF OPINION AND THE BELIEF OF THE AO IS HELD BASED ON SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES. THE REOPE N ING IS HELD BAD IN LAW. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE ANNULLED. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS ON THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE DISALLOWAN CE DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE PAYMENTS ARE ACTUALLY TO THE PERSONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, IF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT HELD VERIFIABLE; FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IT REQUIRES TO BE PROV ED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO SOME OTHER P ERSONS WAS ABOVE RS.50,000/ - EACH. AS THE REOPENING OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ARE HELD INVALID, T HE ISSUE THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND I S DECIDED A S SUCH. ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 6 OF 10 6. THIS LEAVES THE R EVENUE AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HA VE HEARD THE REV ENUE . CASE FILE PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE IMPUGNED REOPENING NOTICE ON 23.07.2010 AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR . T HE REOPENING REASONS FORM PART OF CI T ( A ) S ORDER IN PARA 3.1 , PAGES 2 AND 3. THERE IS NO FAILURE QUOTED ON ASSESSEE S PART IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND PARTICULARS SO FAR HIS INCOME IN QUESTION IS CONCERNED. THIS VIOLATES FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IT FURTHER EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED REGULAR ASSESSMENT SPECIFICALLY STATING THEREIN TO HAVE VERIFIED ASSESSEE S JOB WORK CHARGES (SUPRA). WE ARE OF THE VIEW IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S BELIEF LEADING TO REOPEN ING UNDER CHALLENGE IS A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE REVENUE FAILS IN REBUTTING BOTH THESE CRUCIAL FINDINGS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION TAKING RECOURSE TO THE IMPUGNED REOPENING IS NOT VALID ON BOTH THESE COUNTS. WE AFFIRM THE LD. CIT(A) S FINDING ACCORDINGLY IN QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REOPENING. THE REVENUE S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT ON MERITS IS HELD TO HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 8. ITA NO. 2045/AHD/2012 FAILS. A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 - A SSESSEE S A PPEAL ITA NO.1796/AHD/ 2012 AND REV ENUE S CROSS APPEAL NO. 2046/AHD/2012 . 9. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER RESTRICTING JOB WORK EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS.52,93,143/ - TO THAT OF RS.6,11,800/ - . THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 7 OF 10 DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE REVENUE S CASE SEEKING TO REVISE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,78,663/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE FOR FAILURE IN DEDUCT ING TDS THEREBY INVOKING SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICT ED THE SAME TO 15% THEREOF BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSION AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT OBSERVATIO NS AND DECISIONS ARE MADE AFTER THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: A. THE AMOUNT OF JOB WORK CHARGES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS RS.1,30,83,051/ - . B. WHILE T HE AO HAS COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCED TDS FOR THE PAYM ENT AMOUNT OF RS.77,89,908/ - ONLY AND PRODUCED COPY OF FORM NO.16A; THE AO HAS FAILED T O TAK E NOTICE THAT IN ONE MORE CASE I .E. RAMIJHUSEN A. GHANCHI, THE PAYMENT OF RS.12,14,480/ - WAS MADE AND ON SUCH EXPENSE TDS OF RS.13,760/ - WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED TO GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER. FORM NO.16A ALONGWITH OTHER DETAILS WAS SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER BUT SHE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TO T AL JOB WORK CHARGES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,30,83,051/ - ; TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON TO T AL PAYMEN T S OF RS.90,04,388/ - (RS.77,89,908/ - + RS.12,14,480/ - ) . C. CLEARLY, THE PAYMENTS ARE VERIFIABLE WITH IDENTITIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.90,04,388/ - OUT OF RS.1,30,83,051/ - . D. NOW, TO SAY THE REMAINING PAYMENTS OF R S.40, 78,663/ - ARE ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES POSSIBLE ONLY TO BIGGER PARTIES W ITH LARGER PAYMENTS AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL LABOURER IS NOT ONLY BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES BUT ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT EVEN PROBABLE. WHEN AROUND 70% OF THE PAYM ENT S ARE TO ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 8 OF 10 LARGER CONTRACTORS THE REMAINING AMOUNT CAN BE TO SMALL TIME LABOURERS ALSO. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS NOT AT ALL ESTABLISHED WHERE THERE IS NO T AN IOTA OF EVIDENCES TO PROV E THAT ANY PAYMEN TS OTHER T HAN THAT OF RS.90,04,388/ - HAVE BEEN MADE TO SOME PERSONS ON CONTRACT WHOSE PAYMENTS WERE DUE TO THE EXTENT OF OVER RS.50,000/ - EACH IN THE YEAR. THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED U/S.40(A)(IA) AND IS SO DECID E D. I HAVE ALSO T AKEN NOTE OF TH E FACT THAT TH E INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 WHER E UNPAID JOB WORK CHARGES AT THE END OF T H E YEAR W A S AN ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS DROPPED BY THE CIT CONCERNED IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR AY 2006 - 07 . HOWEVER , I AGREE WITH THE AO TO TH E EXTENT THAT CA SH VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ES SEE HAVE O N LY NAMES AND DO NO T HAVE T HE PA NUMBER OR ANY ADDRE S S OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT WAS PAID. FROM SUCH VOUCHERS THE AUTHENTICITY OF T HE EXPENSES CANNOT BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. VERIFICATION IS NOT AT ALL POSSIBL E AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ADDRESS EVEN FOR SOME OF THEM WHICH SHOULD NORMALLY BE POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE WHO REGULARLY AND DIRECTLY EMPLOYS MANY LABOURERS. LOOKING TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE TURNOVER CLAIMED AND THE TOTAL EXPENSES SH OWN, A DISALLOWANCE OF 15% OF THE TO TAL EXPENS E S SHOWN MADE IN CA S H TO T HE P E RSON IN WHOSE CASE TDS IS NOT DEDUCTED IS SUSTAINED HOLDING THEM NOT TO BE FULLY VERIFIABLE AND NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.37(1). THEREFORE, IN TOTALITY A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,11,800/ - ( 15% OF RS.40,78,663/ - ) IS CONFIRM E D OUT OF THE EXPENS ES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD JOB WORK EXPENSES AND THE R E MAINING ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TE D. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE REVENUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE TO LABOURERS AS JOB WORK EXPENSES AND NOT AS WAGES OR PAYMENTS SO AS TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID THE SAME AS OUTSTANDING PAYABLE TO LABOURERS ON CASH RECEIPT VOUCHERS INVOLVING PAYMENTS TO BE BELOW RS.20,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 9 OF 10 DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE REBUTTED THE PECUNIARY LIMIT OF CLAIM RAISED AT ASSESSEE S BEHEST. HE QUOTED FAILURE IN TDS DEDUCTION AND DISALLOWED THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.52 , 93 , 143/ - . THE L EARNED CIT(A) IS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE PAY MENTS IN QUESTION DO NOT EXCEED RS.50,000 LIMIT. HE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT EVEN LEARNED CIT(A) S ACTION INITIATING/DROPPING SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS. WE TAKE NOTE OF HIS OBSERVATION THAT VERIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR WANT OF FURNISHING OF PAYEES ADDRESSES. ALL THESE PECULIAR FACTS HAVE MADE THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO DISALLOW 15% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THERE CAN BE HARDLY ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) S POWERS ARE CO - TERMINUS WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. TH IS IS NOT THE REVENUE S CASE IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE ASSESSEE S LABOUR/JOB WORK EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE ON GENUINENESS OR OTHER ASPECTS. WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD ASSESSING OFFICER S DISALL OWANCE TO THE TUNE OF 15% THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE S GRIEVANCE IS ALSO NOT FOUND SUBSTANTIABLE SINCE HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION. WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT BOTH THE PARTIES FAIL IN POINTING ANY IL LEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS. BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ITA NO.1796/AHD/2012 AS WELL AS ITA 2046/AHD/20 12 ARE REJECTED. 11. ALL THESE APPEALS ITA NOS. 2045, 1796 & 2046 /AHD/2012 ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR S.S. GODARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2016 ITA NO S . 2045 2046 & 1796 / AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2 0 0 5 - 06 &2009 - 10 PAGE 10 OF 10 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE R ESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD