PANKAJ SAHA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-26(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2513/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 February 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence for the payments, but also noted no abnormal expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to a lump sum of ₹50,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of labour payments due to discrepancies in muster roll preparation. The lower authorities disallowed ₹3,05,878/- out of the total labour expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of labour payments was justified, and if so, to what extent, given the lack of cogent evidence and absence of abnormal expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order dated 19.09.2019 passed in case No.152/CIT(A)-7/Ward-26(4)/Kol/17-18, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s only grievance canvassed in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its labour payments of ₹3,05,878/- out of ₹94,56,753/- expenditure after noticing discrepancies in muster roll preparation and other ancillary issues. I notice during the course of hearing that neither the assessee has been able to prove the impugned payments by way of cogent evidence nor it is the Revenue’s case that the same involved any abnormal element of expenditure Pankaj Saha & Co. Vs. ITO Wd-26(4),Kol. Page 2 compared to earlier and latter assessment years. I therefore deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance of ₹3,05,878/- to lump sum figure of ₹50,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. The assessee gets part relief. Necessary consequential computation to follow as per law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →