9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to be mentioned in the delivery challans and also match with the truck number stated in the concerned bills issued by Buildwel Bricks & Sand Suppliers. Accordingly, genuineness of the purchases is not in doubt. As during the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has also called the remand report and after considering the same, reached to the conclusion that M/s. Buildwel Bricks and Sand Suppliers is a proprietary concern of Lukman Mohamed Ibrahim Patel and assessee had made genuine purchase from these parties. The detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) after considering the remand report was not controverted by learned DR by bringing any positive material on record. No reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). - ITA No.803/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM For The Revenue : Shri M.V.Rajguru For The Assessee : Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-6, Mumbai dated 13/11/2014 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. In the appeal so filed revenue is aggrieved the deleting the disallowance of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted among the labourers. For example, the appellant has furnished copy of voucher No. 233 dated 28.04.2010 amounting to gross amount of ₹ 27,062/-(which includes wages ₹ 25,912/-, conveyance ₹ 800/- and mobile expenses ₹ 350/-) in the name of Hasib (Mokadam) and the payment has been received on the same date by Razzak. Razzak's name appears on the summary sheet in respect of project 'PUSHPAK' for June 2010. It means that the labourer Razzak went to the head office on 28.04.2010 along with the summary sheet of ₹ 27,062/- prepared by Hasib (Mokadam) and the said voucher was accordingly prepared and the cash was handed over to labourer Razzak, who distributed/handed over the same to the concerned persons i.e. Hasib (Mokadam) (Rs.17,340/-) and the other labourer Nabin (Rs.9,722/-). It may also be noted that the summary sheet prepared is supported by the daily sheet of Hasib (Mokadam) and labourer Nabin. And Thus, I find nothing wrong in the contention of the appellant that the wages spent in cash have been distributed to individual labourers/ Mokadams. 4.6 Yet another sample voucher No. 706 dated 21.06.2010 is of the gross amount of wage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of individual payments to be made to the individual labourers. In view of above, it is evident that the payments aggregating to ₹ 1,98,64,644/- are payments pertaining to individual labourers / daily wage workers and hence no tax deduction at source was liable to be made. Further, the provisions of section 40A(3) are also not attached as the payments have been made to the labourers. Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would not apply as no third party or any Mokadam has charged any markup on these payments and the payment made is not to any contractor/sub-contractor. It appears that the AO has not applied his mind to these documents, which make it quite evident that the payments are in respect of wages to individual labourers and all the vouchers are supported by logical documents containing list/summary sheet/daily sheet of the concerned labourers/ Mokadams. In my view therefore, the disallowance of ₹ 1,72,00,660/- (out of ₹ 1,98,64,644/-) was not at all called for as neither the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), nor section 40A(3) of the Act are attracted. Therefore the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs,1,72,00,660/-. 6. AO has also disallowed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that as per its balance sheet, the assessee has incurred wages and labour charges at ₹ 2,51,71,674/-, whose bifurcation as per schedule 11 is as under: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Wages 1,98,64,644/- Labour welfare 29,302/- Lunch/Tea allowance 47,494/- Labour charges 18,54,681/- Site expenses 22,24,723/- Maharashtra Labour welfare fund 5,424/- Guniting work 8,26,5967- Electric consumption at site 3,18,810/- Total 2,51,71,674/- 10. The AO considered the claim of above expenses and from the details submitted in this regard, noted that from the sample copies of cash vouchers drawn for making payment of wages, it was evident that no TDS had been deducted in respect of the amount of ₹ 2,19,35,882/- and the TDS was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld AO asked for the details of labour charges debited to P L A/c. The assessee submitted all the details alongwith copies of necessary vouchers to the Ld AO. It was further explained to him that some of these workers are temporary workers are paid wages on daily basis whereas some are paid on periodical basis based on the requirement at project site. Since these workers are not permanent they are paid their wages based on the no of days they have worked. We found that none of the payments made to a single labourer in a day exceeded ₹ 20,000/-. Since the provisions of deduction of tax are not applicable no tax has been deducted on the payments made to these casual and temporary labourers. Moreover these labourers are from unorganized sector who do not have either PAN No. or Bank A/cs. To control the activity of these labourers and to avail maximum utilization of these labourers assessee has appointed Mukadam or supervisors. Whose duty is to record the attendance of these labourers and get the work done from them. Based on the same the Mukadam used to send to the assessee detailed sheet comprising of name of labour or no. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
