2020 (1) TMI 1305 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment to two labour sardars without deduction of tds - contention of assessee is that there was no contract between the labour sardars and the assessee and the payments were made for better administrative convenience and smooth functioning of the factory - HELD THAT - As relying on Jyoti Prasad Rout case 2019 (12) TMI 1371 - ITAT CUTTACK CIT-A was justified in accepting the plea of assessee being the labour sardars are not suppliers of labours and as such he rightly deleted the impugned addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We uphold the impugned order of the CIT-A - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2005-06.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 1.12.2014 of the CIT(A), 1, Bhubaneswar, concerning the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to ?7,40,779 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment made to two labor sardars without tax deduction under section 194C of the Act. The appellant argued that there was no contract between the labor sardars and the appellant, and the payments were made for administrative convenience and smooth factory functioning. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support the deletion of the disallowance. The Departmental Representative did not counter the appellant's submission. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and relevant case law. It noted that the controversy revolved around payments for labor charges to labor sardars without a formal contract, leading to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the absence of a contract between the appellant and the labor sardars, concluding that the disallowance was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal referenced various decisions to support its conclusion, highlighting that the absence of a formal contract between the appellant and the labor sardars precluded the application of section 194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that labor sardars were not considered labor contractors but facilitators of payments, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's presumption lacked concrete evidence of a contractual relationship between the appellant and the labor sardars. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, emphasizing that the labor sardars were not suppliers of labor. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal found the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) unsustainable and directed its deletion. In light of the above analysis and judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, leading to the deletion of the disallowance amounting to ?7,40,779.