Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: subcontractor in M/S. Yash Corporation,, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4),, ... on 1 January, 2019Matching Fragments
10.11 Accordingly, we are inclined to reverse the order of lower authorities and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him for Rs. 19,06,739/-. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
11. The 2 nd issue raised by the assessee in the ground no. 4 to 6 is that learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 20,38,708/- on account of the payment made to the subcontractor.
12. The assessee during the year has made certain payments to the subcontractors for the execution of the work assigned to it by Gujarat Council of primary education amounting to Rs. 20,38,708/- only. The details of the parties stand as under:
12.2 On a question by the AO the assessee made the reply vide letter dated 29th February 2016 as under:
i. It does not have regular dealing with the subcontractors described above. As such some work was assigned to them on a sub-contract basis in the year under consideration. After completion of the contract work, there was no contact with these parties.
ii. It has provided the refund status of all these subcontractors downloaded from the income tax department website.
iii. It has supplied PAN of all the subcontractors.
iv. In the case of one subcontractor namely Mahmmed Husen Syed it has furnished the front page of the bank passbook, form 16A and computation of income.
v. The assessee in the case of subcontractor namely Nimesh builders proprietor Shri Nimesh mystery submitted that he was on the bed rest as a result of an accident. The assessee in support of his contention filed the copies of the medical bills and discharge report.
ITA no.95/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2013-14 12.3 However, the AO disagreed with the submission of the assessee by observing that the refund status of the subcontractors cannot be the basis of holding that the payment to the subcontractors is genuine.
12.4 The primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by it by producing necessary supporting pieces of evidence.