Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. We have considered the entire material before us and it is seen that paged 5-13 of the assessment order does not refer any incriminating material found as a result of search in respect of job work of M/s Sai Export which was the proprietary concern of Sh. Mohinder Kumar Garg. Only evidence which has been referred in the assessment order was the statement of Sh. Mohiner Kumar Garg in which he stated that since April, 2014 he was working as production consultant with assessee company and earlier he was regular employee of the assessee company 01.01.1997 to 30.09.2013 and that books of accounts of M/s Sai Exports was found being maintained on a computer at D-3,Sector-59, Noida premises covered u/s 133A of the I.T. Act and it was further found that Sh. Rajiv Poddar who was working as an accountant of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. was also found to be maintaining the books of accounts of M/s Sai Exports on the direction of Seniors of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. and that during the course of survey proceedings Sh. Rajiv Kumar Poddar was unable to provide any details regarding work done by M/s Sai Exports for the assessee and he was also unable to produce any copy of vouchers, challans and goods sent for job work for M/s Sai Exports. During the course of survey, statement of Sh. Pawan Arya of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. was also recorded on oath in which he stated that M/s Sai Export used to do some job work for M/s Orient Craft Ltd. but he was unable to furnish any particular detail and he was even unable to name of the owner and address of M/s Sai Export and further that auditor of Sh. Mohinder Kumar Garg and the assessee company with the same.

23. Ld. Counsel thus submitted that above evidences clearly speak for the genuineness of the charges incurred by the appellant company to the job worker involved and therefore, it is prayed that the disallowance made by Ld. A.O. by treating such job work charges as not genuine may please be deleted.

24. Certain adverse observations have been made by Ld. A.O. for making the impugned disallowance hence it is necessary to meet although adverse observations as under:-

1. Ld. A.O. has mentioned at page 5, 6 & 7 of the assessment order that Sh. Mohinder Kumar Garg prop. of M/s Sai Exports admitted in his statement recorded u/s 132(4), that he was working as production consultant since April, 2014 and was regular employee for M/s Orient Craft Ltd.

30. We have considered the entire material before us including the paper books, orders of the lower authorities, synopsis filed before us, written submissions filed before CIT(A) which is part of the paper book. It is seen by us that page 13-15 of the assessment order does not refer any incriminating material found as a result of search in respect of job work of M/s Shri Ram Export which was the proprietary concern of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta. Only evidence which have been referred in the assessment order was that at the address mentioned in the income tax return of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta of Shri Ram Export, search was undertaken and that premises was occupied by the sister and brother in law of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta in which the sister and brother in law told to the search team that Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta resides in district Rohtak, Haryana and that Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta runs a business of selling belts and earns only Rs. 15,000/- per month. And that Auditor of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta prop. of M/s Shri Ram Export is M/s V.K. Dhingra& Co. who happens to be Auditor of the appellant company also and that email id on income tax return of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta and on the return of the appellant company is that of an employee of the appellant company and further that statement of the wife of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta was recorded according to which Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta was in the business of trading in belts with monthly income of Rs. 10,000 and having no connection with M/s Orient Craft Ltd.

4. Ld. A.O. has mentioned at page 13-14 of the assessment order that statement of the wife of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta was recorded according to which Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta was in the business of trading in belts with monthly income of Rs. 10,000 and having no connection with M/s Orient Craft Ltd.

In reply, it was submitted this statement of the wife's of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta surfaced for the first time in the assessment order and at no point of time such statement even referred by Ld. A.O., let alone the supply the said statement of the assessee. Therefore such statement cannot be considered as any evidence against the assessee. In any case wife remaining ignoring about their husband's income and activity in middle class families is not something unusual. Therefore on the basis of wife's statement, job work expenses incurred by the appellant company are not proved to be non genuine.