Shri Gajendrasinh Lalsinh Rahewar, Sabarkantha V. The Income tax Officer,S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

ITA 2197/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 219720514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K VOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A C SHAH

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , , , , !'# !'# !'# !'#, , , , $ $ $ $ %% % & %% % & %% % & %% % &, , , , ' ' ' ' ( # ( # ( # ( # BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2197/AHD/2009 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-2006] GAJENDRASINH LALSINH RAHEWAR PROP. MARUTI CONSTRUCTION AT & POST : RUPAL TAL. HIMMATNAGAR DIST. SABARKANTHA. PAN : AAUPR 8319 R /VS. ITO, S.K. WARD-3, HIMMATNAGAR. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) .& / 0 (/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.C. SHAH ' / 0 (/ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. VOHRA DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 (2 / O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL , VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-X, AHMEDABAD DATED 13.04.2009 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,00,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) OUT OF LABOUR EXPENSES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS RECORDED THAT OUT OF TOTAL L ABOUR PAYMENT OF RS.80,12,017/- THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TO THE PETTY C ONTRACTORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.62,25,232/-, WHICH IS VERIFIABLE BECAUSE THE PET TY CONTRACTORS WERE PRODUCED AND THEY ADMITTED THE WORK DONE BY THEM AND PAYMENT RECEIVED THEREFORE. THUS, THE REMAINING PAYMENT TO PETTY CONTRACTORS RE MAINED UNVERIFIABLE, ITA NO.2197/AHD/2009 -2- THEREFORE, HE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.3,00 ,000/- AS AGAINST RS.5,00,000/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO. HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK OF CANALS. TH AT FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYED THE PETTY CONTRACTORS AND ON THE BASIS OF WORK DONE BY THEM, THE PAYMENT IS MADE. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IS VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE. MERELY, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SOME OF THE PETTY CONTRACTORS, THAT TOO AFTER LAPSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THE PAYMENT IS UNVERIFIABLE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.3 LAKHS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE. THE LEARNED DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE HAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AT RS.5 LAKHS, THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY REDUCED TH E DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3 LAKHS AND THEREFORE NO FURTHER RELIEF SHOULD BE ALL OWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,50,000/-. WE THEREFORE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF LABOU R EXPENSES TO RS.1,50,000/- AND THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.1,50,000/ -. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT THE DATE MENTIONED O N THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS ORDER. SD/- SD/- ( %% % & %% % & %% % & %% % & /MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ' ' ' ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . G.D. AGARWAL) !'# !'# !'# !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT.