9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the C.I.T.(A)-XVI, Kolkata dated 18.11.2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The only issue taken by the Revenue in this appeal, is relating to deletion of Rs.13,38,542/- disallowed by the AO by applying provision of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of this issue are that, while doing the scrutiny assessment, the AO has observed that the assessee debited job charges to the tune of Rs.1,63,47,570/- in the PandL a/c. and perusal of the details of job charges submitted revealed that the same was paid to 22 parties. The AO also observed that the assessee deducted TDS on job charges of Rs.1,49,69,028/- only @2.24% which is Rs.3,35,905/- and deposited the same to the govt. a/c. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42/- was deducted on the payment of Rs.1,24,550/- to one party for Saree Dying Charges. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was a contractor and made payment to subcontractors amounting to Rs.1,63,47,570/- on account of job charges. Therefore, the appellant was required to deduct the tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the I.T. Act. Out of the total payment of Rs.1,63,47,570/- the payment of Rs.1,37,59,392/- was paid to four parties exceeding Rs.1O,00,000/- and hence as per the provisions of section 194C(2) the tax @ 1.12% on this payment comes to Rs.1,54,380/-. The balance amount of Rs.25,88,178/- was paid to 18 different parties and u/s. 194C(2) the tax 1.02% on this amount comes to Rs.26,399/-. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the AO has mentioned in the assessment order categorically that the assessee was asked to explain as to why the balance job charge expenses of Rs.13,78,542/- was not subjected to TDS, the assessee has not mentioned anything against that. The contention of the assessee is only that she has deducted the TDS on an amount of Rs.1,49,69,028/- at 2.24% i.e. Rs.3,35,905/- and deposited the same to the government a/c. However, the Ld. CIT(A), without contradicting this finding, has given relief, simply by accepting the submissions of the assessee that the assessee deducted and paid more amount to the tax authorities, than as required under the law. Therefore, he requested to reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A)1 and restore that of the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.13,78,542/-, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to delete the entire disallowance by observing that the assessee has recovered excess TDS on Rs.1,49,69,028/-. Therefore, we set aside the same and restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify whether the balance job charges of Rs.13,78,542/- was really subjected to TDS as per law or not, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details of Rs.13,78,542/- to substantiate whether the TDS is required to be deducted or not, before the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 10.12.2010. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
