9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Rs. 20,000/- and aggregate payment is less than ₹ 50,000/- to each party in the assessment year under consideration. Being so, Sec.194C(2) of the Act cannot be applied. As these facts were not examined by the Ld.CIT(A), though raised before him and prayed the issue may be remitted to the file of AO for considering all the facts. - I.T.A.No. 1494/Mds./2011, And I.T.A.No.1535 /Mds./2011 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2017 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate For The Revenue : Mr.Murali Mohan, Additional. CIT DR ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These cross appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturers did not have the characteristic attached to a sub-contract. 5. The Petitioner I appellant is advised to rely on the principles laid down in the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd [(2006) 282 ITR 3 (Mad)] ii. Mythri Transport Corporation vs. ACIT [(2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 290 (Visakhapatnam)] iii. Kranti Road Transport P. Ltd vs. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 15 (Visakhapatnam)] iv. Prashant H Shah vs. ACIT [(2012) 52 SOT 69 (Ahmadabad) (URO)] v. Kavita Chug vs. Income Tax Officer [(2011) 44 SOT 95 (Kol) (URO)] 6. The Petitioner I appellant submits that the above Additional Grounds give rise to a question of law for consideration by the Hon ble Tribunal and are based on facts already on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh while setting aside the order of Ld.CIT(A), for the reason that when matter remained part heard, Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 24.02.2009 without considering the assessee s submission dated 02.03.2009. 3.2 In the next round, before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the same additional grounds raising in the present appeal in ITA No.1494/Mds./2011 for our adjudication. 3.3. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee received a sum of Rs. 1,22,34,656/- as job work coolly from M/s.Sakthi Masala (P) Ltd, Erode during the previous year 2004-05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06, which was reflected in P L A/c. A sum of Rs. 2,65,595/- was deducted as TDS for this job work by M/s.Sakthi Masala (P) Ltd, Erode (nature of payment b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible u/s.40A(3) r.w.r.8D and computation thereof - NIL During the proceedings before Ld.CIT(A), the ld.A.R admitted that a sum of 18,10,611.50 is the amount outstanding payable towards wages. According to Ld.CIT(A), the main contention of assessee was that there was no contract, written or oral, between her and the workers, who attended to making of appalams pursuant to which the payment of job work cooly was made and the recipients of the job work cooly were facilitators and not sub contractors to attract the proviso to sec.194C(2) of the Act. Further, Ld.CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion that the claim of assessee is not correct. Payments were not made to individual job work coolly worker directly. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per assessee s letter dated 30.09.2007, none of the sub-contractors were having bank accounts. From the above, it is clear that the receipts in the hands of the sub-contractors were not accounted for IT purpose. Ld.CIT(A) observed that there should be disallowance for non-deduction, since the deductor is not able to show accounting by the deductees. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the act to the tune of 18,10,611/- instead of 1,07,69,581/- adopted by AO and also to levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B 234D being consequential in nature. Against this order of Ld.CIT(A), both are in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
