RAMCHANDRA R. PILLAI,NERUL vs. ITO 22(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1398/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2018AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the genuineness of work contract expenses and could not satisfactorily explain other debited expenses. Therefore, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee's returned income was Rs. 11.06 Lacs, but the assessment was framed at Rs. 51.48 Lacs. Additions were made for work contract payments and unverified expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of work contract expenses and satisfactorily explained other debited expenses.

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-26/IT-196/13-14 dated 02/12/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and therefore left with no option, we proceed to dispose- off the same on the basis of material available on record and after ITA.No.1398/Mum/2016 Ramchandra R. Pillai Assessment Year-2010-11 hearing Ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Ram Tiwari. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer- 22(3)(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 18/03/2013 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.51.48 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.11.06 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 19/09/2011.

2.

The assessee being resident individual engaged as civil and mechanical contractor under proprietorship concern namely Geetanjali Construction Co. has been saddled with following additions as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) and which form the subject matter of this appeal:-

1.

No. Nature of Additions Amount (Rs.) 1. Work Contract paid to Brothers Engineering Works 1,82,818/- 2. Work Contract paid to National Electricals 1,71,030/- 3. Adhoc disallowance against unverified expenses 10,00,000/- TOTAL 13,53,848/-

3.

The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A), with due application of mind and after considering the factual matrix has adjudicated the issues and therefore the same require no interference.

4.

We have heard the submissions and perused the order of lower authorities in this regard. Upon due consideration, so far as the addition against work contract expenses is concerned, we find that the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the expenditure could not be discharged by the assessee. Similarly, the expenses as debited by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account could not be satisfactorily explained. Hence, the additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A) were justified and we do not find any infirmity in the same.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →