9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 77 - HC - Income TaxITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1.50 crore made by AO invoking the provisons of Section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C - During the course of assessement proceedings in the case of the assessee it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed that it had carried out work worth Rs. 4.92 crores for PGF Ltd. but the TDS certificate issued by PGF Ltd. was only in respect of Rs. 4.55 crores - In the present case payments has not been made by the respondent assessee to M/s. Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd. for carrying out any work for it as sub contractor secondly it is claimed as an expenditure under the head profits and gain of business and profession - Tribunal while deleting the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has made out altogether a new case and accepted the stand of the assessee that they had not paid Rs. 1.50 crores and the said work was not sub-contracted by them to Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd - Held that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and this Court should interfere with the said order - Decided against the assessee
Issues Involved:
(i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.50 crore made by the AO invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act? (ii) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that there was no relationship of contractor and sub-contractor between the assessee and M/s Rishikesh Properties Limited? Detailed Analysis: Issue (i): Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia): The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006-07, challenging the deletion of Rs. 1.50 crore addition by the ITAT. The Assessing Officer (AO) had observed discrepancies in the TDS certificates and payments claimed by the assessee, Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., during the assessment proceedings. The AO noted that the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on Rs. 1.50 crore paid to Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd., invoking Section 194C, thereby attracting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The first appellate authority deleted the addition, reasoning that the Rs. 1.50 crore was not claimed as an expense in the profit and loss account, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was uncalled for. However, this reasoning was found unconvincing by the High Court, which noted that the amount was indeed claimed as an expense, and if not disallowed, the entire amount of Rs. 6.42 crores should be treated as income, leading to the same result. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the Rs. 1.50 crore was not part of the total expenses claimed by the assessee and was not made under a sub-contractual agreement. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work and claimed as an expenditure under "profits and gain of business and profession." Issue (ii): Relationship of Contractor and Sub-Contractor: The Tribunal concluded that there was no sub-contracting relationship between the assessee and Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd. It was held that the Rs. 1.50 crore paid by the assessee was not for carrying out any work as a sub-contractor but was part of the work assigned to Rishikesh Properties by PGF Ltd. directly. The Tribunal reasoned that all three group companies, including the assessee, were direct contractors for PGF Ltd., and the confusion arose due to discrepancies in TDS certificates. The High Court found that the Tribunal's reasoning was based on a new case not presented before the AO and was contrary to the assessee's admissions in the letter dated 5.12.2008. The Tribunal failed to consider this letter and the relevant material evidence, leading to a perverse finding. Conclusion and Remittance: The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was perverse due to its failure to consider material evidence and the assessee's admissions. The Court referred to precedents where findings based on irrelevant or excluded relevant material are vitiated by perversity. The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, it remitted the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to consider the assessee's reply dated 5.12.2008 and other relevant evidence. The parties were instructed to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Tribunal, on 23rd April 2012, for fixing a hearing date. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
