2014 (7) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act - Short deduction of TDS on earth work and labour payments Held that - Prior to the survey operations under S.133A with respect to the TDS deductions that took place on 24.3.2008 - relevant assessment orders placed on record do indicate that AO examined the payments in detail and accepted the additional income offered on these payments - Had the payments been made to sub-contractors, the AO certainly would have invoked provisions of S.40a(ia) and not S.37(1) in the scrutiny proceedings - the payments to labour for earth work were directly made by the assessee and there are no sub-contractors for the labour, and books are maintained to monitor the man hours put in by the labour, it is neither fair nor proper for the Revenue authorities to arrive at a contrary conclusion by imputing the involvement of sub-contractors and thereby invoking the provisions of S.201(1) and S.201(1A), so as to raise demands on account of non-compliance with the TDS provisions in relation to payments thus, the orders of the CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the demands raised u/s 201(1) and S.201(1A) in relation to payments made by the assessee towards labour/earth works Decided in favour of Assessee. CIT(A) observed that there is nothing on record to suggest that the transactions are genuine hire purchase transactions, upheld the view taken by the AO the observation of the CIT(A) is contrary to the claim of the assessee as to the nature of the transactions, being of hire purchase transactions thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for re-consideration Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of demands under S.201(1) and S.201(1A) for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
- Compliance with TDS provisions regarding payments made by the assessee.
- Discrepancies in earth work/labour charges and financial charges.
- Appeal against the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

Analysis:

1. The appeals by the assessee were against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) II, Hyderabad, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appeals were related to the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under S.201(1) and S.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The factual background and issues in both appeals were common, leading to a joint hearing and decision for convenience.

2. The case involved a survey operation conducted on the business premises of the assessee, engaged in civil contract works. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under S.201(1)/S.201(1A) due to observed violations of TDS provisions and non-deduction of tax at source in various payments made by the assessee. Demands were raised for both assessment years based on these findings.

3. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-08 but partially allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09. The contention was related to compliance with TDS provisions, specifically regarding payments to sub-contractors and certain government organizations.

4. The assessee appealed against these decisions for both assessment years, challenging various aspects of the orders, including short deductions of tax and interest under S.201(1A).

5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included challenges to the determination of short deductions, interest under S.201(1A), and other related issues for both assessment years.

6. The main issue addressed was the short deduction of tax concerning payments made by the assessee for earth work/labour charges and financial charges. The assessee argued that direct payments to laborers exempted them from certain TDS provisions, citing relevant case law and previous assessments.

7. After considering the submissions and examining the record, the Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities had not maintained consistency in their conclusions. They directed the Assessing Officer to delete the demands related to payments towards labor/earth works, as the payments were made directly by the assessee and not through sub-contractors.

8. Regarding the financial charges issue, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and instructed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the nature of the transactions involving finance charges. The assessee's claim of hire purchase transactions needed further verification and consideration.

9. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 and allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment of the financial charges issue.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the facts, arguments, and decisions made by the authorities.