ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI vs. VISWANATHAN CHANDRASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Mr. Marudha Pandian, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mrs. S.Bala, FCA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that in the course of the assessment, the AO had disallowed an amount of Rs.2,14,15,675/- shown as bills payable in the consolidated balance sheet of the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee had claimed that the bills payable represented the balance amount payable to the labourers for civil works done by the assessee during the earlier years. It was a submission that the assessee had claimed that the said amount had been paid subsequently. It was a submission that in the assessee’s explanation, that these are the payments due to the labourers, were not accepted and the same was disallowed. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition on the ground that the AO had not rebutted the assessee’s submissions that the amount had been paid between 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2018 and that these amounts related to the earlier years. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.

In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that out of the amount of Rs.2,14,15,675/-, an amount of Rs.1,99,15,175/- related to the earlier assessment years. It was a further submission that an amount of Rs.15,45,500/- related to the AY 2012-13. It was a submission that these amounts were due to the labourers in respect of the outstanding wages from the civil contracts. It was a submission that the outstanding wages were settled in phased manner during the AY 2014-15 and the evidences have also been produced before the AO. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be sustained.

We have considered the rival submissions.

A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the bills payable as shown in the consolidated balance sheet does not relate to the period under assessment but relates to the period for the earlier assessment years. These are nothing but carry forward creditors. This being so, clearly, the same cannot be considered for the addition during the assessment years. Further, in any case, the Ld.CIT(A) has considered the facts in detail in Page Nos.5-7 of her order. The findings as arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A) have not been disproved by the Revenue. This being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.