Sudarshan Goyal vs. The Commissioner

ITA 4/2014 1 Sudarshan Goyal Vs. Commissioner, Income Tax 11/04/2014 Shri K.N.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Saurabh Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Heard. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dt.31.10.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.163/Agra/2013. The appellant formulated following substantial questions of law for admission of the appeal :- (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned tribunal committed an error in remanding the case towards payment to sub-contractors Ishan Goyal and Sumeet Goyal, for verification by CIT (Appeal) whereas entire material was considered and appreciated by CIT (appeal) and gave a finding for not approving addition, as made by the Assessing Officer ? (ii) Whether learned tribunal has committed an error in setting aside the deletion of addition of Rs.1160000/- made by the CIT (Appeal) on the basis of material on record, out of Rs.1660000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case ? The revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) in regard to deletion of amount of Rs.82,017/- made under Section ITA 4/2014 2 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of excess payment made to Mr.Sumit Goyal and further deletion of additional amount of Rs.5,51,237/- made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of excess payment made to Mr.Ishan Goyal, both sons of the assessee. The assessee claimed that he had made payments of Rs.9,75,287/- and Rs.5,37,172/- to his sons on account of work done by them as sub- contractors. The Assessing Officer examined the books and recorded a finding that the payment was made in excess. Several discrepancies were found by the AO in regard to payments to the effect that in the register names of daily wagers were mentioned. It is not mentioned that how much amount was received by the daily wagers and there was considerable gap in payments. Some payments were shown to be made on national holidays. AO further recorded a finding that the assessee claimed that he had incurred an amount of Rs.2.15 crore to sub-contractors which was towards labour oriented job, however, vouchers and wages registers were not produced. On this ground, the AO disallowed 10% of total expenditure. The findings of facts recorded by the AO are based on cogent evidence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has further appreciated the findings and found that the aforesaid findings were in accordance ITA 4/2014 3 with law. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law involved for admission of this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.K. Gangele) (B.D.Rathi)

Judge Judge SP