9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO that merely because nomenclature of expense is given as ‘Labour Charges Paid’ does not conclusively determine the character and nature of the expense claimed. The AO has to decide the issue based on evidence/materials brought before him in accordance to law. So, with these observations, we are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand this issue back to AO for de novo examination in the light of facts and law in accordance to law, after giving opportunity to assessee. - Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 191/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2018 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Appellant : Sk. Golam Kuddus, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to confirm the action of AO. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Our attention was drawn to page 6 of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the break-up of the amount in dispute is given which is as under: Sl. No. Name of labourer Cost of Material paid to each labourer Labour charges Total amount Rs. 196 Sajaed Sephal 41600 8500 50100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 453100 7. According to Ld. AR, no TDS was deductible because the amount disbursed to nine labourers included cost of material, travel reimbursement and wages to individual labourers which cannot attract sec. 194C of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee is that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of AO. We note that the assessee had debited a sum of ₹ 1,11,22,120/- under the head Labour charges paid and since the AO noted that against the aforesaid nine persons the payment made in the year exceeded ₹ 50,000/- and because TDS was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act, AO disallowed the entire expenditure made to these parties. Though the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
