9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.1447/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2015 - SHRI N.S. SAINIAND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JJ For the Appellant : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Tushar Hemani, AR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Surat. ( CIT(A) in short) dated 28/01/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. at ₹ 1,44,16,556/- after accepting the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 30/12/2009, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition of ₹ 1,68,07,463/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. Against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal; thereby the addition made on account of disallowance of labour payments by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,44,16,556/- made on account of disallowance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following reasons: i. For the AY in consideration the provisions of sec. 194C(2) of the Act casted the responsibility on the contractor to deduct the TDS on any payment made to any sub-contractor. There are no provisions in the relevant section which cast responsibility on the sub-contractor to deduct TDS on any payment made to any person to whom the sub-contractor has subcontracted his work. In this case, the appellant is a sub-contractor and it was not required to deduct TDS on payments to sub-contractor. The order passed by the A.O. cannot be held to be a speaking order because he has not commented anything upon the submissions made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings especially about the applicability of provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Prashant H.Shah. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the said case held that for application of section 194C(2) of the Act what was necessary was a relationship between the contractor and sub-contractor and not merely be hiring of an agency by the contractor during the course of execution of the work. In the present case, such vital requirement of relationship of a contractor and sub-contractor between the assessee and the transporters was missing. The Hon ble High Court further held that therefore the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that liability to deduct tax at source in the present case do not arise. In the case in hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
