M/S. GUPTA BROS. (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition on the grounds that • The must rolls were not signed • The amount of daily wage payment did not coincide with the number of present marked of that employee • Excess labour expense was thus booked. • As per the ledger account labour charges were booked twice in a month by mentioning the voucher numbers. • In the month of March the labour charges were booked 5 times and was 4 times the average wages debited throughout the year.

Before us, the ld. AR argued that the Revenue Authorities have wrongly held that the payments made as excessive based on the CPWD manual and the percentage of labour charges incurred in the earlier years. It was argued that owing to the urgency of renovation of Hotel Ashoka for Common Wealth Games, the labour has been paid higher wages and also over time allowance. The earlier year parameters cannot be resorted for disallowing the labour charges as the cost of labour charges goes up every year.

The ld. DR argued that the assessee has not produced proper vouchers and the muster rolls are incomplete and also there is repetition of name of the labourers at frequent intervals. Hence, the rejection of

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

We have gone through the orders of the revenue, we find that the enhancement was mainly on the following grounds: There was no number of the vouchers • There was no revenue stamp • There was no supporting bills • The entire payment was in cash • The parties were not identifiable • There was no deduction of TDS •

We hold that absence of serial no. on the vouchers cannot be a ground for rejection of books of accounts. Similarly, the lack of revenue stamp on the bills and supporting bills cannot lead to rejection of books of accounts in the absence of any observation by the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT (A) regarding the defects in the books of accounts per se or in the mode and method of accounting procedure which fail to reflect correct profits. The ld. CIT (A)’s reason for rejection of the books of accounts is that the entire payment was in cash, the parties were not identifiable and there was no TDS deducted. We find that the Income Tax Act provides sufficient provisions to deal with the matters of payments in cash and non-

Hence, keeping in view, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the action of the ld. CIT (A) on this ground is not legally valid.

Regarding the other grounds which have not been adjudicated owing to rejection of books of accounts, the matters are being referred back to

During the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has submitted the confirmations and bills which are in the name of Gail India Ltd. and delivered at Baruch which the ld. CIT (A) did not take cognizance of owing to absence of application under Rule 46A. Before us, it was argued by the ld. AR that the Gail India Ltd. was the work site whereas the material purchase was in the name of the assessee. The ld. DR argued that the confirmations filed at a later date purportedly from the branch office cannot be held to be genuine. Since, the fact of the material purchase has not examined in perspective, in the interest of justice, we hereby remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the relevant documents in support of their claim and comply promptly to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time.

Regarding the purchase of Rs.8,36,966/-, the assessee could not produce the original bill on the grounds that the same was misplaced. He submitted before the ld. CIT (A), the copy of the account of the supplier, confirmation and the payment details from bank accounts. Since, it is a matter of finding of the fact, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to take a decision after conducting due enquiries as deemed fit and keeping in view the corroborative evidences filed by the assessee.

The matter stands adjudicated in ITA No. 1110/Del/2015 above, the same ratio is applicable to this ground.

During the year the assessee has received the following refunds and against the same the following interest has been shown: Dated of Receipt Refunds Interest shown 10.1.2011 940,105 166,985 5.10.2010 5,777,000 476,998 21.5.2010 2,418,299 872,122 The Assessing Officer found that as per the ITD system interest u/s 244A of the Act has been granted to the assessee as under: Dated of Receipt Interest 1.1.2011 643,982 24.9.2010 477,000 21.5.2010 405,187 The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.654,047/- being the difference of the interest received and already shown in the return of income.

Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee submitted that they have not received any intimation from the Income Tax Department for issue of Refunds and or adjustments of refunds during the year under appeal. The amounts received during the year have duly been reflected in the Books of Accounts. The Assessing Authority has not given any details of Refunds paid by Income Tax Department. The assessee do not seem to have any other refunds where the interest of Rs.6,43,982/-, and Rs.4,05,187/- has been shown to be added to the income.

The facts of the case as per assessment order are that the assessee did not show the interest earned or refund granted to it during the year

During the current financial year assessee has accepted unsecured loans from Sh. Harshwardhan Arya, an NRI and Sh. Vineet Kalhan, NRI amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively. Assessee via order sheet nothing dated 30.12.2013 was asked to produce the confirmation regarding the loan given to the assessee from both of the parties. No confirmation has been furnished by the assessee. However on 14.01.2014 one page of a bank statement has been produced without any proof of genuineness of the said statement. It is claimed to be of Sh. Harshwardhan Arya but the assessee has failed to produce confirmation regarding the same. No confirmation and copy of bank statement of Sh. Vineet Kalhan could be produced by the assessee. In the absence of supporting documents, genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer held that provisions of Section 68 are attracted on these transactions. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same on the grounds that the assessee has failed to discharge the requirements envisaged in Section 68 of the Act. We find from the records that an E-mail confirmation regarding the loan has been filed which the revenue failed to take into cognizance. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh as to whether any interest has been charged and the loan has been repaid and to take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The assessee has made payment of Rs.17,61,055/- under the head “legal and audit fees” and deducted TDS on payment of Rs.3,03,900/-. The assessee has submitted that he would be producing a certificate from the persons to whom the payments have been made stating therein that the amounts have been reflected in their Income Tax Returns and they have paid the taxes. Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act, the matter is being referred back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee who furnish the evidence regarding payment of taxes on the amounts received from the assessee by the recipients.

The assessee has paid Rs.17,465/- on account of interest paid on late deposit of TDS. There is no provision of Income Tax Act to allow such interest as business expense. In the case of DCIT Vs M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata), it was held that the interest expenses claimed by assessee on account of delayed deposit of TDS liability was allowable under section 37(1) as the TDS amount did not represent the tax of assessee but it was the tax of the party which had been paid by assessee. In the case of Shree Saras Spices & Food P. Limited Vs. DCIT after due consideration of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (198) 230 ITR 733 (SC) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC)held that no deduction is allowable for the interest paid on late deposit of the TDS. The legislature does not envisage utilization of the tax deducted on behalf of the State to be utilized by the deductor for personal gains and pay interest on the same and then to claim deduction on such interest. Hence, we hereby uphold the disallowance made on account of interest paid on late deposit of TDS.

We find that the revenue has not brought anything on record to prove that the assessee’s vehicles have been utilized for personal use. In the absence of any evidence prima facie indicating the personal use no adhoc disallowance can be made. Hence, we hereby direct the disallowance made on this account be deleted.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/08/2019).