Law:

Section:

ORDER J.K. Ranka, J. - This appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "IT Act") has been preferred by the appellant-revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "ITAT") dt.17/10/2008 passed in ITA No.1058/JP/2007 by which the ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur (for short, the "CIT(A))". The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee is a limited company and mainly engaged in the business of contract and working for National Highway Authority of India on contract basis and the respondent-assessee gets work order after submission of tenders. It is claimed by the respondent-assessee that it is maintaining regular and proper books of accounts supported by material and relevant records and accounts are also audited by a Chartered Accountant. 3. The Assessing Officer (for short, "AO"), during the course of assessment proceedings, desired the respondent-assessee to explain the nature and source of payment debited on account of job work charges to the extent of Rs.2,51,80,655/- and particularly of three sub-contractors namely; Shri Bhura Ram Chaudhary, M/s. Payal Builders and Consultants & Gautam Builders and Consultants to whom substantial payments amounting to Rs.24,49,757/-, 27,92,267 and 16,47,516/- respectively have been made and finding that the amount being substantial desired further particulars and evidence with reference to the said payments to the said three sub-contractors. 4. The respondent-assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs.50,18,663/- under the head of Soil testing and surveying expenses and with reference to the same as well, further evidence was desired by the AO. There was a third claim with reference to the remuneration/salary to one Shri Viswas Jain who is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-assessee-company to whom salary of Rs.24 lac was paid and according to the AO, the payment is excessive. 5. During the course of hearing, the AO desired explanation on all three points, referred…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492