Ita/450/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Hassan Hajee & Co

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 1[st]DAY OF JUNE, 2015. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR. AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR I.T.A. No.450/2009 BETWEEN: 1)The Commissioner of Income-Tax.C.R. Bullding|AttavaraMangaloreC.R. Bullding|AttavaraMangalore 2.The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Teay Circle-1(1)|C.R.BuildingAttavaraMangaloreC.R.BuildingAttavaraMangalore .. Appellants| (By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Standing Counsel for appellants) ? AND * M/s. Hasan Hajee & Co.,Near Old Municipal OfficeBunder|Magnalre © ..Respondent (By Sri S. Parthasaratni, Adv.,along with Smt. Jinitna Cnatterjeeand Sri V.K.Gurunathan, Adv.,) This ITA filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act,1961 Is arising out of order dated 30.04.2009 passed in ITA|No.947/Bang/2008 (assessment year 2004-05). This ITA is|filed praying to:- Formulate the substantial questions of law stated.therein, Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in.ITA No.947/Bang/2008, dated 30.04.2009, and|confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner|confirming the order passed by the Assistant.CommissionerofIncome.Tax,Circle-1(1),Mangalore. 3 This ITA coming up for final hearing, this day,MOHAN|SHANTANAGOUDARwaydelivered|thefollowing. JUDGMENT Tnis appeal is filed by the Revenue questioning the.order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ in ITA No.947/Bang/08—(Assessment year 2004-05). The appellants have prayed|for confirmation of the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the CommissionerofIncome.Tax(Appeals){AppellateCommissioner’ for short}. | 2. The assessee is involved in Stevedoring operationsof vessels and carrying on loading and unloading work at.the port; assessee has engaged labour force from New.Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT’ for short), registered cargo|Handling Workers Administrative Wing (RCHWAW); the)payment to the labour so engaged would be made by 4 cheques to NMPT and in turn NMPT would disburse thewages to the workers. Case of the assessee is that as theregistered labour force at NMPT did not agree to work.beyond the limit fixed by them, the assessee had engaged|the services of the private workers and had made payment.in cash to the extent of Rs.1,17,59,931/- and through| chequestO|Sub-contractorstO|theexTeny|ofRs.2,/0,/0,745/-; the payments were made through self|made vouchers. According to the assessee, loading and|unloading operations were carried out by it by making the|following payments: 708Rs.2,53,29,660/- through cheque to NMPT Workers’.Union. |Union. | 7B8Rs.2,/0,70,745/- to sub-contractors who brought.the workers privately to the port for the purposeof |unloading the iron ore. The payments were made.through cheque to the sub-contractors.the workers privately to the port for the purposeof |unloading the iron ore. The payments were made.through cheque to the sub-contractors. 5 7.8Cash of Rs.1,17,59,931/- was paid by the assessee|to the gang leaders who had brought the workers|privately as speed money.|to the gang leaders who had brought the workers|privately as speed money.| 3. The Assessing Officer allowed the contention of theassesee insofar as it relates to payment through cheque to. the NMPT Union and sub-contractors. However, the|Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assesseeto the extent of 20% in respect of cash payment to gang.leaders aS mentioned supra, which means the Assessing|Authority allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of80%. Questioning the order passed by the AssessingAuthority,the| /174/.CIT(A)/MNG/2006-07 before the Appellate Commissionerunder Section 246 of the Income Tax Act (the Act’ for|short). The Appellate Commissioner while adjudicating theappeal issued show cause notice under Section 251(2) of.the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both 6 3. The Assessing Officer allowed the contention of theassesee insofar as it relates to payment through cheque to. the NMPT Union and sub-contractors. However, the|Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assesseeto the extent of 20% in respect of cash payment to gang.leaders aS mentioned supra, which means the Assessing|Authority allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of80%. Questioning the order passed by the AssessingAuthority,the| /174/.CIT(A)/MNG/2006-07 before the Appellate Commissionerunder Section 246 of the Income Tax Act (the Act’ for|short). The Appellate Commissioner while adjudicating theappeal issued show cause notice under Section 251(2) of.the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both 6 the parties, the Appellate Commissioner enhanced the tax.liability by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing|Officer in respect of payments made to sub-contractors.through cheque a sum of Rs.2,/0,/70,745/-. However.Appellate Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the.Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to speed money paid.to various gang leaders in cash. | The order of the Appellate Commissioner is carriedfurther by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate.Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ in ITA No.947/Bang/08 by.filing the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by its.order dated 30.4.2009 allowed the appeal of the assesseein part and restricted the addition to the extent of)Rs.15,00,000/- as against Rs.2,94,00,000/- made by the|Appellate Commissioner. 7 4. Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned standing counsel forthe appellants as well as Sri S. Parthasarathi, learnedadvocate for the assessee have taken us through the entirematerial on record, more particularly the orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner and Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bangalore. — 5. The Appellate Commissioner has in his detailed.order clarified as to how the order passed by the Assessing.Authority is unsustainable to the extent mentioned supra.To verify the genuineness of the payments made by theassessee to the sub-contractors through cheques, summons.Under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act issued to all the|Sub-contractors mentioned in the assessment order andtheir statements recorded on oath by the Assessing Officeralso came to be examined. It came to be noticed by theAppellate Commissioner that all the sub-contractors havestated that they have carried loading and unloading work at the port for the assessee by engaging private labour and.they have further confirmed the Dill. All these labour.contractors are assessed to tax and they Nave filed returns.belatedly declaring the above labour contract proceeds and|offered income to tax under Section 44-AD of the Act.However the Appellate Commissioner, on facts nas found|that the vouchers issued to the sub-contractors and.payments made to them are highly suspicious in nature.The details collected from the assessee were made.available to the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts)Officer, NMPT, Mangalore for getting reports. The details.received from NMPT, Mangalore when compared with the)details which the assessee has made available before the.Appellate Commissioner fully tallied with each other in.terms of date, item and quantity in metric tons. In otherwords, the entire cargo was handled by the assessee with.the help of NMPT labour, for which assessee has paid a sum.of Rs.2,53,29,660/- by cheque. Hence, it appears a 9 9 genuine doubt arose in the mind of the AppellateCommissioner as to whether the actual payments were.made to the sub-contractors or not in the matter ofengaging the workers and payment of money to them as.speed money. The letter written by the assessee to the.Appellate Commissioner discloses that the total cargo.handled during the financial year 2003-04 was 8,00,000|tons. On verification of the details obtained from the NMPT,Mangalore vide letter dated 17.10.2007, it was found that|the details furnished by the assessee tallied with the detailsfurnished by NMPT and hence the assessee was asked to.explain as to whom payment of Rs.2,/0,/0,/45/- had been.made and for what service. It is also found by the.appellate Commissioner that all the statements of sub-contractors recorded by the Assessing Officer are of stereo’type and same 18 questions were asked by the Assessing|Officer to all the sub-contractors and all of them have given.identical replies. Virtually, it means that stereo type| statements are repeated by the Assessing Officer while.considering the case on hand in respect of 18 sub-contractors. It is also borne out from the records that the.sub-contractors have not maintained any list of accounts in.respect of labour contract works of the assessee. They.Nave not maintained any records regarding the labourers|engaged, the details like names and addresses of the.workers etc., and the same are not available with the sub-contractors. Even the list of accounts and other details)are not available to know the total number of labourers|engaged etc., It is also admitted by the sub-contractorsthat they have not maintained any records to show as to.how much payments were made to the labourers. It is.further admitted before the Assessing Officer that they havenot maintained any evidence like vouchers, receipts in|respect.ofpayments.madetO.thelabourersetc.,Regarding payment to individual labourers, no details are)maintained. There is no written agreement between the| assessee and the sub-contractors. The bills produced by.the sub-contractors before the authorities are computer.generated bills which are identical in respect of all the sub-contractors and they did not have any service taxregistration number, cell phone number etc., On perusal|of their Dank account records, it IS observed by theAppellate Commissioner that when the payment by cheque.was made, the amount was withdrawn by cash on the sameday or on the next day. 6. In addition to the same, the Tribunal, on facts hasfound that the Appellate Commissioner did not findavailability of any big labour force which can be engaged byassessee or any other cargo handling concern for thebusiness. It is found that NMPT labour is so organized and |strong that they would not allow any private sub-contractors to carry on the work and receive the hugepayments as indicated by the assessee in this case. It is 17- also found by the appellate Commissioner that even the.nature of work and infrastructure available at NMPT portdoes not require engagement of huge labour force of the.nature indicated by assessee. Most of the cargo handlingprocess was mechanized and therefore the requirement of labour force was minimum. On these amongst other|grounds, as set out in detail in his order, the appellateCommissioner disallowed the sum of Rs.2,/0,/0,/45/-|which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. | 7. The Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal,|has casually proceeded to sustain the order passed by the|Assessing Officer. None of the major points decided by theAppellate Commissioner are answered by the Tribunal while.settingaside.theorder|passed|by theAppellate|Commissioner. Though the order passed by the Tribunal.runs to number of pages, the crux of the matter is notadverted to by the Tribunal while arriving at the conclusion. 13| 7. The Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal,|has casually proceeded to sustain the order passed by the|Assessing Officer. None of the major points decided by theAppellate Commissioner are answered by the Tribunal while.settingaside.theorder|passed|by theAppellate|Commissioner. Though the order passed by the Tribunal.runs to number of pages, the crux of the matter is notadverted to by the Tribunal while arriving at the conclusion. 13| On careful perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we.are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot besustained inasmuch as the Tribunal has not applied its mind.judiciously to the facts and circumstances of the case. In.view of the same, interest of justice requires that’ thematter has to be re-dealt by the Income Tax Appellate|TridDunal, Bangalore. By the said process, no prejudice.would be caused to either of the parties. Accordingly, following order is passed: 7*8The order dated 30[tn]April 2009 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore BenchIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ in ITA No.947/Bang/08 (Assessment year|2004-05) stands set aside.2004-05) stands set aside. 7**8The matter in ITA No.947/Bang/08 is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ for fresh disposal in)accordance with law. |accordance with law. | This Court hopes that the Income Tax AppellateTribunal will apply its mind judiciously before arriving at theconclusion. | In view of the remand order, the substantial questions| of law raised in this appeal are Kept open. Sd/-. JUDGE Sd/-. JUDGE | Gss/-