Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Pune’s order dated 22-01-2020 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-2/ITO Wd- 1/AN/1254/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 40a(ia) disallowance of sub-contract expenses @ 30%, coming to Rs. 32,64,066/- as upheld in the lower appellate order.
3. Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had himself concluded in para 8 of the assessment order that the assessee had never even produced his books of accounts coupled with fact that the same remained un-audited as well. That being the case, I quote Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (1978) 232 ITR 771 (AP) that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in case of non-availability of books of accounts or rejection thereof. The impugned disallowance is directed to be deleted for ITA 93/PUN/2022 Vikas G. Jagtap A.Y. 2016-17 this precise reason alone. The Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned disallowance are rejected accordingly.
Delay of 683 days in filing of the instant appeal instituted on 3-02-2022 is condoned since falling in Covid 19 pandemic outbreak period.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th August 2022.