Shri Kanubhai Ramjibhai Makwana, Anand V. The Dy.CIT.,Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 3286/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 328620514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3286/AHD/2009 ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA BHALEJ ROAD ANAND ( ( ( ( / VS. THE DY.CIT ANAND CIRCLE ANAND * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACYPM 8211 D ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.G.PATEL ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI (2 1 3% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 17/11/2011 4') 1 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-11 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA DATED 22/09/2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. GROUNDS RAISED ARE H EREBY DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:- 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,02,476/- U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT POINTED ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - OUT AS TO HOW SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNRE ASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVI CES. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3)OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 19/1 2/2008 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS A CIVIL CONTR ACTOR. CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS AND BY INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) A DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF RS.6,0 2,476/- WAS MADE. WHEN THE MATTER HAD GONE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HE HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED HIS EARLIER DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND AFFIRMED DISALLOWANCE. 2.1. HOWEVER, FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ITAT B BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEAL TITLED AS KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKW ANA VS. THE ITO BEARING ITA NOS.3883/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 & 464/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 , ORDER DATED 18/06/2010 , HAS ALLOWED AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH AND ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW I N THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US. CERTAIN IMPORTANT POI NTS AS RAISED BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION WERE THAT THE ACCOUNTS BEING AUDITED AS PRESCRIBED U/S.44AB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THERE FORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. TH AT THE SUB- CONTRACTORS WERE SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO TAX BY FILI NG THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS. THAT THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON T HE SAID PAYMENT AND THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. FINALLY, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT T HE STATUTE DO NOT PRESCRIBE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AND FOR A DISALLOWA NCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EAR-MARKED A PARTIC ULAR PAYMENT ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. REGARDING THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT WAS UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE, A RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.6-P (LXXVI-66) OF 1968, DATED 6 TH JULY, 1968 WHEREIN VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.74 AN OBSERVA TION IS THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO EXER CISE HIS JUDGMENT IN A REASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER. THE BOARD SAYS TH AT IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE PROVISION IS MEANT TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELAT IVES AND ASSOCIATE-CONCERNS AND SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BONA FIDE CASES. IN THIS CO NTEXT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE H AS PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO EVASION OF TAX IN THE PRESENT CAS E BECAUSE THOSE SUB-CONTRACTORS HAVE FILED THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS INDEPENDENTLY. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, A RELIANCE HAS BEEN P LACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH B IN THE CASE OF I TO VS. M.M. TEXTILES REPORTED AS [2009] 31 SOT 207 (MUM.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IT IS NECESSARY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNRE ASONABLE. THE NEXT PLANK OF ARGUMENT WAS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOCATION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THERE IS N O SCOPE OF ADHOC ADDITION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT, A RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEHA PROTEINS VS. ASST.CIT REPORTED AS (2004) 83 TTJ (JD) 236. I N THIS CONTEXT, ONE MORE DECISION, VIZ. SHYAM OIL CAKE LTD. VS. ASS TT.CIT REPORTED AS (2004) 83 TTJ (JD) 414 HAS ALSO BEEN CITED. IN ONE OF THE CASE OF BATIVALA & KARANI VS. ASST.CIT REPORTE D AS [2005] 2 SOT 379 (MUM.) AN OBSERVATION WAS MADE THAT THE UNREASO NABLENESS SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOME SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOME COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH ESE BASIC REQUIREMENTS WERE WANTING, HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ADHOC DISALLOW ANCE WAS UNWARRANTED, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE E YES OF LAW CONSIDERING THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND TH E LAW LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. THE FINDINGS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE, THEREFORE, HEREBY REVERSED. GROUND ALLO WED IN BOTH THE YEARS. ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 3. ONCE A CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW BUT TO FOLLOW THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL ASSESSEES GROUND IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO.2 READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,24,897/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS DULY MADE P AYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN . 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THOUGH THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED IN THE MONTHS OF DECEMBER-2005, SEPTEMBER-2005, MAY-2005, FEBRUARY-2 006, ETC. AS PER A LONG LIST INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T OWARDS PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTER, FABRICATORS, ETC. THE TAX WAS DEPOSITE D IN THE MONTHS OF APRIL- 2006. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C OF THE I.T.ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX ON OR BEFORE MARCH-2006. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 2,24,897/- WAS ADDED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. STATEMENT IN T ABULAR FORM IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT TAX WAS D EDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS COMPRISING RS.22,24,897/- ON DATES BEF ORE 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2006. THE CASE THEREFORE, FALLS UNDER CL AUSE (B) OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), I.E. FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES IN A.Y. 2006-07, TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE CRED IT OF GOVERNMENT BEFORE 31.3.2006. SINCE THE TAX DEDUCTE D AT SOURCE FROM THESE PAYMENTS WAS PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF GOVE RNMENT ON 28 TH /29 TH APRIL, 2006, DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF RS.22,24,897 /- IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E U/S.40(A)(IA) IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR THESE EXPENSES IN A.Y. 2007-08 AS PER PROVISO BELOW SECTION 40(A)(IA), AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF BHARAT SHIPYARD 132 ITD 53, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE DATES ON WHICH THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, BUT IT WAS NOT PAID WITHIN THE SPECIF IED DATE, I.E. UPTO 30/03/2006 AND IT IS ALSO NOT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE OTHERWISE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED THEREIN, W E HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DISMISS THIS GROUND. MOREOVER, THE LD.AR HAS ALTERNATIVELY PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM OF E XPENSE IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS IS DEPOSITED. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THIS ALTERNATE PLEA AND ALLOW THE CLAIM, IF PERMISSIBLE, AS PER LAW. WITH THESE REMARKS AS FAR AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.3 READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF WORK WAGES EXPENSES TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.8,00,000/- THOUGH PROPER VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.1. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED WORK WAGES EXPENSES O F RS.1,10,47,148/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUC E THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY PRODUCED VOUCHERS INDICATING THE NATURE OF WORK CAR RIED OUT SHOWING PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OF FICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NO DETAILS REGARDING THEIR SERVICES UTILI ZED FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT WERE MENTIONED IN THOSE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM AS PER THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATION:- 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED WORK WAGES EXPENSES OF RS.1,10,47,148/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES IN RESP ECT OF THIS PAYMENT. IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY. IN SUPPORT OF THE C LAIM, THE VOUCHERS INDICATING THE NATURE OF WORK CARRIED OUT SHOWING P AYMENT TO VARIOUS PERSONS WERE PRODUCED. HOWEVER, NO DETAIL S REGARDING THEIR SERVICES UTILIZED FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS, NUMBER OF DAYS, RATE OF WAGES PER DAY WERE NOT MENTIONED. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED DAY TODAY WAGE REGISTER, MORE OVER THAT CERTAIN VOUCHERS ARE SELF MADE VOUCH ERS. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, 10% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.1,10,47,148/- WHICH WORKS OUT AT RS.11,04,714/- ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - 8. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY WHO HAS PARTLY AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. FOR CLAIMING ANY EXPENSES, PRIMARY ON US IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAI M. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SELF MADE VOUCHERS CONTAINING NO DETAIL S OF PROJECT WISE DEPLOYMENT OF LABOURERS, NUMBER OF DAYS AND RATE OF WAGES PER DAY. PAYMENTS TO LABOURERS WERE IN CASH AND IN THE ABSEN CE OF SUCH DETAILS, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX AMINE THEIR GENUINENESS. NO WAGE CARD AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, BEING SUBSTANTIALLY UNVERIFIABLE, DUE TO LABOURERS BEING NOT TRACEABLE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SUPPORTING R ECORD EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DI SALLOWING PART OF SUCH EXPENSES. THE CASES CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE. REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANTS GROSS PROFIT DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.63,33,894/- ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.12,12,77,600/-, I.E. 5.2%. THE NET PROFIT, AFTER EXCLUDING THE INC OME DISCLOSED DURING SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, ETC. WAS RS.24,23,482/-, I.E. 1.99%. APPELLANT IS A CONTRACTOR AND EVEN THO UGH HIS CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 44AD, THE PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT RAT E OF 8% UNDER SECTION 44AD IS AN INDICATOR OF NET PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRIRAM JAISWAL VS. ITO (2005) 98 TTJ 639 (JD) HELD THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO COMPUT E TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 44AD, EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THIS SE CTION IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE, WHERE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR VOUCHERS. IN APPELLANTS CASE, NET PROFIT EARNE D IS WAY BELOW THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% TO BE APPLIED U/S.44AD IN CASES OF ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OR SUPPLY OF LABOURERS FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS, DISALLOWANC E OUT OF WORK WAGE EXPENSES IS DIRECTED TO BE MADE AT RS.8,00,000/- . APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.3,04,714/-. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. AT THE OUTSET, LD .AR MR.M.G.PATEL HAS STATED THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PAST. HE ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE OF WORK WAGES VIZ-A-VIZ TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME HAD GONE DOWN COMPARING THE AVERAGE OF LAST THREE YEARS. IN SUPP ORT, LD.AR HAS PLACED A CHART WHICH IS SUMMARIZED BELOW:- STATEMENT SHOWING COMPARATIVE CHART OF WORK WAGES 1. 2. 3. 4. A.Y. TOTAL RECEIPT AS PER P&L A/C. WORKER WAGES % OF WORK WAGES 2004-05 50585953 6476771 12.8 2005-06 82422828 6454285 7.83 2006-07 121277600 11047148 9.11 9.1 FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD. D.R. MR. VINOD TANWANI HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND P LEADED THAT A REASONABLE RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BY LD. C IT(A) THOUGH THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS WERE INCOMPLETE. ACCORDING TO HIM NO INTERFERENCE IS ANYMORE REQUIRED. 10. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT COMPARING THE PROFITS DECLARED IN THE PAST THE RESULTS SHOWN WERE STATED TO BE BETTER ON HAND AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE PERCENTAGE OF WO RK-WAGES, AS PER THE CHART, WAS COMPARABLE . MERELY ON THE SURMISE THA T ON CERTAIN VOUCHERS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE PROJECT FOR WHIC H THE PAYMENT WAS MADE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE. BUT THE FA CT REMAINED UNDISPUTED THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO OTHER DEFECT WAS FOUND, AS PLEADED B EFORE US. NEVERTHELESS, WHILE WRITING THE VOUCHERS THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT APPREHEND THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D ALSO COULD NOT ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - APPREHEND THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WAS TO BE NOTED ON THE VOUCHERS ITSELF. FURTHER IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THA T CERTAIN SPECIFIC VOUCHERS WERE NOT GENUINE. A GENERAL OBSERVATION WA S MADE BY THE A.O. THAT THE PROJECT-WISE DETAIL WAS NOT RECORDED ON TH E SAID SELF-MADE VOUCHERS. IT WAS A SWEEPING, RATHER A GENERAL REMAR K, SPECIALLY WHEN NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS NOTED. IN ANY CASE THIS FACT CO ULD ALSO NOT BE DENIED THAT THE LABOURERS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE T HE A.O. AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE ALSO ALLEGED TO BE LACKIN G. OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES THUS WARRANTS TO SUSTAIN A TOKEN ADDI TION PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY USING OUR DISCRETION, AS ALSO SUG GESTED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, AS A SYMBOL OF CAUTION TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT IN FUTURE HE SHOULD BE MORE VIGILANT IN MAINTAINING THE RECORDS. WE THEREFORE REDUCE THE ADDITION TO RS.2,00,000/-( TWO LAKHS ) AND IN THIS MANNER THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/ 12 /2011 63..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.3286/AHD /2009 SHRI KANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-IV, BARODA 5. 7 >> >/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..25.11.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.11.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.12.12.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.12.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER