Amiya Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. K. Bansal, AM & Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

I.T.A No.2257/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Income-tax Officer, Wd-3(4), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Amiya Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCP9725D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Date of hearing: 08.06.2015 Date of pronouncement: 08.06.2015

For the Appellant: Shri Sanjay, Addl. CIT For the Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate

ORDER

Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:

This appeal by revenue is arising out of order passed by CIT(A)-I, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 559/CIT(A)-I/Wd-3(4)/07-08 dated 20.09.2010. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-3(4), Kolkata u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2005-06 vide his order dated 19.12.2007.

2. The two inter-connected issues raised by revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of bogus labour charges at Rs.38,24,801/- and unexplained current liabilities amounting to Rs.44,16,980/-. For this, assessee has raised following four grounds:

"1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.38,24,801/- made by the assessing officer under the head labour charges.

2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts & circumstances of the case in accepting assessee's explanation that on the basis of incomplete records exclusively found during the survey no such conclusion can be made that the assessee must had incurred labour charges to the amount as per impounded bills and vouchers without appreciating the findings of the AO that assessee could not produce bills and vouchers apart from impounded documents.

3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.44,16,980/- made by the assessing officer under the head unexplained current liabilities.

2 ITA No.2257/K/2010 M/s. Amiya Corpn. (I) P. Ltd. AY 2005-06

4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts & circumstances of the case, in accepting the assessee's explanation that increase under the head current liability was mainly due to the increase of advance from customers and there was never any failure on the part of the assessee to explain the enhancement of liability, without appreciating the findings of the AO that assessee could not furnish details of current liability and provision at the time of scrutiny hearing so that same could not be verified."

3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that a survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act on the business premises of the assessee. The assessee carries on business of structural engineer which involves execution of contract jobs. During the course of survey, the revenue found documents like bills and vouchers regarding labour charges which were impounded in marking of ID as AC-2. As per impounded bills and vouchers, total expenditure on account of labour payment was amounting to Rs.62,73,411/- whereas in the P&L Account assessee claimed the expenditure at Rs.1,00,98,212/-. The AO provided a number of opportunities but the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of balance labour charges with bill and vouchers. Accordingly, AO treated these expenses as bogus but CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that delay in furnishing the documents and records was unintentional and labour payments were duly incorporated in the labour ledger. According to CIT(A), assessee's jobs were to execute the labour contract throughout India. Hence, bills and evidence relating to labour payment had been retained at the site offices till completion of work. Accordingly, CIT(A) deleted the addition. We find that the very basic documents like bills and vouchers were not produced by assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings or could not reconcile how there is a difference. As the assessee could not produce the evidence the CIT(a) should not have allowed the relief rather he should have asked for remand report from the AO. However, now in the interest of justice, we remit this issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is free to lead evidence like bills and vouchers to support the claim of labour charges. Now, we are coming to unexplained credit liabilities of Rs.44,16,980/-. As the assessee could not produce the documents i.e. enhancement of current liabilities and provision to the tune of Rs.44,16,980/-, the AO treated the liability as bogus. The CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee that increase in the head current liabilities was mainly due to increase of 3 ITA No.2257/K/2010 M/s. Amiya Corpn. (I) P. Ltd. AY 2005-06

advance from customers. The CIT(A) also observed that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to explain the enhancement of liability but now the revenue contended that no documents were produced before the AO by the assessee in respect to increase in liability which were produced before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and the factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that this issue also needs re-examination at the level of the AO. Hence, we set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. In term of the above, we allow the appeal of revenue for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Order is pronounced in the open court on 08.06.2015 Sd/- Sd/-

(P. K. Bansal) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated : 8th June, 2015

Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. APPELLANT - ITO, Ward-3(4), Kolkata.

2 Respondent - M/s. Amiya Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., 5A, Orient Row, Kolkata-700 017. 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. The CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

/True Copy, By order,

Asstt. Registrar.