9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 358 - AT - Income TaxNon - prosecution - TDS u/s 194C - payment of wages to labour sardars for non deduction of TDS - addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that - It is noticed that inspite of service of notices for the hearing even on 15-03- 2017 fixed by the Bench none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his case. In view of the above, following the decisions in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT-A was justified in deleting the addition made on account of payment of wages to labour sardars for non-deduction of TDS. 2. Whether the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition for Non-Deduction of TDS: The core issue in this appeal was whether the CIT-A was justified in deleting the addition of ?1,26,52,944/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to labour sardars. The assessee, engaged in contractual work, filed a return disclosing a total income of ?21,29,065/-. During assessment, the AO found that the assessee made payments to labour sardars without deducting TDS, which is mandatory under section 194C. The AO added ?1,26,52,944/- to the total income of the assessee, invoking section 40(a)(ia). The assessee contended that the labour sardars were not contractors or sub-contractors but facilitators for payment of wages to the labourers, who were the ultimate beneficiaries. The CIT-A accepted the assessee's argument, supported by the Railway Contractors Labour Union certificate, disbursement register, and relevant case laws. The CIT-A concluded that the labour sardars were not suppliers of labourers but merely facilitators, and thus, section 194C did not apply. Consequently, the CIT-A directed the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A’s decision, noting that similar issues had been resolved in favor of the assessee in various orders, including the decisions in M/s. Kwality Construction, CIT vs. Stumm India, and Samanwaya vs. ACIT. These precedents established that without a contract between the assessee and the labour sardars, section 194C and the consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. 2. Dismissal of Assessee's Appeal for Non-Prosecution: The second issue was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. Despite being served notices for the hearing, the assessee did not appear or file any adjournment petition. Following the decisions in Multiplan India (P) Limited and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution. Conclusion: The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming that the CIT-A was justified in deleting the addition made for non-deduction of TDS on payments to labour sardars. The assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the lack of interest in pursuing the case. Both appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 05-05-2017.
|
