9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 194C will not be applicable in the case of the assessee - It is an Agricultural Marketing Board who is executing and carrying out the works – thus, there was no requirement of making deduction u/s. 194C of the Act by the assessee - the appellant cannot be held to be in default u/s. 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 – Relying upon CIT vs. KUMS, Gajsinghpur & Ors. [2009 (1) TMI 781 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.06/Jodh/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri G. R. Kokani, D.R. For the Respondent : None ORDER Per N. K. Saini: This is an appeal by the Department against the order dated 30/10/2012 of the CIT(A) , Udaipur relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- u/s 201(1) of the Act by holding the assessee as assessee in default for the year under consideration. 4. The assessee carried the matter to learned CIT(A) and the submissions of the assessee, as narrated by the learned CIT(A) in para 4.2 of the impugned order, are reproduced verbatim as under: 4.2 During appeal, it has been submitted that the KUMS is a semi Government body regulated by the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee constituted as per APMC Act and is a public charitable institution and entitled for benefit of section 12A registration. Whatever expenses have been incurred by way of contribution to Rajasthan Marketing Board, contribution to development fund, contribution for construction, repairs, maintenance of road etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee to its parent body cannot be said to be incurring of expenditure for the construction work and roads missing link roads etc. and provisions of section 194C are not applicable in the appellant's case. The appellant relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gajsinghpur Ors. (2009) 21 DTR 64. (ii) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. ITO (TDS)-3, Sikar in ITA No. 55/JP/2011. Further, the appellant in support of its contention has submitted copy of Rule 52 of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board as per which all the works to be taken by Market Committees shall be executed and carried out was construction of market yards and sub yards for transfer to market committees, construction of link roa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, there was no requirement of making deduction u/s. 194C of the Act by the assessee." The facts are incidental in the appellant's case and accordingly it is held that provisions of section 194C are not applicable in the appellant case. Hence, the appellant cannot be held to be in default u/s. 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for Rs.3,37,507/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Now the Department is in appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee had furnished the written submissions wherein it is stated that this issue is covered by the earlier decision dated 28/09/2012 of this Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.319 to 324/Jodh/2012 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 in the case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) Udaipur vs. The Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
