Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S.GODARA
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 28-01-2016 passed in case No.0177/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad, is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, the amount paid to subcontractor amounting to Rs.2,23,69,143/- is disallowed.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the assessee produced all the details of payments made to the subcontractor and also deducted TDS on such payment, therefore, should have deleted the addition made on account of payment made to subcontractor amounting to Rs.2,23,69,143/-.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the amount of Rs.2,23,69,143/- is not the income of the assessee under the provisions of the IT Act.
5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary”.
3. Learned departmental representative next takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion affirming the impugned disallowance of sub-contractor expenses as well as the corresponding service charges as under:
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s vehement contentions and find due merit therein. It is admittedly a case wherein the assessee had claimed the impugned sub-contractor works payment to M/s. Euphoria Commerce Pvt. Ltd., followed by TDS deduction thereupon as well. The fact however remains that the said payments have turned out to be bogus in nature as per the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. It is sufficiently clear that the assessee had merely passed accommodation entry amount without having proved the impugned sub-contracts to have been awarded to the payee herein. We thus quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) [82 ITR 540] (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) [214 ITR 801] (SC) that the evidence filed in income tax proceedings has to be appreciated by removing all blinkers in light of human probabilities.
Coupled with this, it is already an instance of admitted additions as discussed in the CIT(A)’s order. We therefore affirm the learned lower authorities’ action under challenge.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st March, 2022