Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned lower authorities had not appreciated and considered the evidences furnished by the appellant and confirmed the addition of Rs.8,25,910/- for payments made to subcontractors, and therefore, the said unlawful and unjustified addition be kindly deleted.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2007-08:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned lower authorities is contrary to law, materially incorrect, and unsustainable in law as well as facts. And that all the adverse findings recorded therein are opposed to facts, equity, and law.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned lower authorities had not appreciated and considered the evidences furnished by the appellant and confirmed the addition of Rs.22,23,093/- for payments made to subcontractors, and therefore, the said unlawful and unjustified addition be kindly deleted.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2008-09:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned lower authorities is contrary to law, materially incorrect, and unsustainable in law as well as facts. And that all the adverse findings recorded therein are opposed to facts, equity, and law.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned lower authorities had not appreciated and considered the evidences furnished by the appellant and confirmed the addition of Rs.3,52,200/- for payments made to subcontractors, and therefore, the said unlawful and unjustified addition be kindly deleted.
5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities had not appreciated and considered the evidences furnished by the appellant and confirmed the addition of Rs.78,000/- for salary paid, and therefore, the said unlawful and unjustified addition be kindly deleted.

13. Being aggrieved, the assesse approached the learned CIT(A) who allowed the ground partly. Learned CIT(A) bifurcated the payments under three different heads. Firstly, the petty contractors who were paid Rs.24,51,850/- and who were not having a PAN and the addresses were not given. Secondly, the subcontractors who were paid Rs.2,96,00,038/- in whose name blank bills/ cash memos/ M/s. Agarwal Technical Education Society vouchers were seized. Thirdly, the subcontractors who were paid Rs.2,75,28,903/- who have got their respective PAN and other details. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the first category on the ground that there is no material evidence and other details like addresses, identity proof and bank statements. In respect of the second category, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition relying on the statement of Shri Rupesh Gorkhe and Shri Khalak Singh and observed that various important papers were seized from the premises regarding bank opening form, application for PAN allotment and blank bills. These contactors were not produced for examination. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the bank account of the sub-contractors shows that the amounts credited include the payments from the assessee society also, as such the payments to the sub-contractors cannot be treated as genuine. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the payment to the subcontractors whose PAN and other details were available on the ground that no construction work would be completed without the cost of labour and material. Accordingly, for the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the additions of Rs.2,49,92,539/- & M/s. Agarwal Technical Education Society Rs.29,98,146/- and deleted the additions of Rs.84,35,482/- & Rs.51,81,140/-, respectively.