Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.2 However, with regard to the other four amounts, i.e. Rs.6,247/- to Mr. Ajay, Rs.24,026 to Mr. J.P. Singh, Rs.4,320/- to Mr. Jagdish, Rs.32,171/- to Mr. J. Singh, Rs.21,240/- to Mr. Suresh Chander, we find it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided de novo after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8. In the ground nos.4 & 5, the issue involved is disallowance of 5% of the expenses debited for running genset and jobwork and labour charges. The Assessing Officer found that assessee has incurred expenses of Rs.34,11,532/- on account of jobwork and labour charges. The Assessing Officer also noted that in the preceding year, the debit under this head was only Rs.17,55,523/- and keeping in view the fact that the expenditure has doubled, however, the turnover has decreased, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of 5% on this amount being Rs.1,70,577/-. Similar addition of Rs.35,774/- was made out of total expenditure of Rs.7,15,480/- on account of genset running expenses.

9. We have heard both the sides on this issue. We find that the assessee has submitted the list of job charges and labour charges along with the names and addresses of the persons to whom the job charges and labour charges were made, PAN numbers were also provided to the Assessing Officer and amount of TDS deducted and details of net amount paid were also filed. Ld. AR also draw our attention that only Rs.600/- has been paid in cash otherwise, all the job charges and labour charges were paid through banking channels only. It was also submitted before us that ld. Assessing Officer's comparison that jobwork and labour charges has doubled and the turnover has decreased, is factually incorrect. In the assessment year 2008-09, these expenses were debited under two heads, i.e jobwork charges Rs.28,63,953/- debited in the trading account and Rs.17,55,523 on account of labour charges debited in the profit & loss account, therefore, the actual expenditure debited under this head for the Assessment Year 2008-09 were of Rs.46,09,475/-. However, in the Assessment Year under consideration, this amount was only Rs.34,11,532/-. On this comparative account also, we find force in the assessee's argument. Considering all these aspects, we delete this addition made by the Assessing Officer and allowed this ground of assessee's appeal.