COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S RAM GOPAL AND SONS

ITA/215/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109348201429 July 20152 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that Question II did not arise as a substantial question of law, as it had been answered against the appellant in a related appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 214 of 2014) decided on the same day. Regarding Question I, the Court found that the issue of labour charges was primarily a question of fact and appreciation of facts. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the labour charges based on the non-traceability of some labourers. However, the Tribunal considered the ground realities, comparable expenses in earlier years, and found a co-relation between production and the number of labourers engaged, especially since they were paid on a piece-rate basis. The Court found that the analysis and findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT were not perverse or absurd. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant) against M/s Ram Gopal & Sons (respondent) for the assessment year 2005-06. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which deleted two additions made by the Assessing Officer. The first deletion was of Rs. 6,72,048/- on account of labour charges, and the second was of Rs. 4,25,602/- on account of shortage in production. The High Court was considering whether substantial questions of law arose from the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law framed by the appellant were: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,72,048/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of labour charges simply relying on the decision in assessee's own case for the Asstt. Year 2005-06, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,25,602/- made on account of shortage in production even when the assessee has not been able to justify the shortage in furnished product. Assessee's contentions were not recorded. Revenue's contentions were that the ITAT erred in deleting the additions without appreciating the facts presented by the Assessing Officer regarding the non-traceability of some labourers and the un-justified shortage in production.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Income Tax Appeal No. 215 of 2014 Date of Decision: 29.7.2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ram Gopal & Sons ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA. Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent(s). S.J. VAZIFDAR

, A.C.J.

(Oral) 1. This is an appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of ` 6,72,048/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of labour charges and deleting the addition of ` 4,25,602/- made on account of shortage in production in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The appellant contends that the following substantial questions of law arise:- “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of ` 6,72,048/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of labour charges simply relying on the decision in assessee's own case in the Asstt. Year 2005-06, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer. II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of ` 4,25,602/- made on account of DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.08.03 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Income Tax Appeal No. 215 of 2014 2 shortage in production even when the assessee has not been able to justify the shortage in furnished product.” 3. Question (II) has been answered against the appellant by our order and judgment passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 214 of 2014. This question is, accordingly, answered against the appellant. The first question also does not arise as a substantial question of law. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of labour charges paid to about 50 labourers. The Assessing Officer reduced this amount having come to the conclusion that only a few labourers were traceable at the given addresses and some of the addresses were not even confirmed. The Tribunal kept in mind the ground realities in such cases. There were comparable results in expenses of labour charges in earlier years. The deductions were allowed to the assessee. The quantum of expenditure can be compared to the production done by the labour. The labour was engaged on piece rate bases. It was found that there was a co-relation between the production as well as the number of labour engaged. The issue really is a question of fact and appreciation of facts. We are unable to say that this analysis and the findings of the CIT(A) and of the Tribunal are perverse or absurd. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. (S.J.Vazifdar) Acting Chief Justice (G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge July 29, 2015 “DK” DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.08.03 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →