Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 1340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s accordingly. The issue in dispute involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. Since we have allowed the appeal on legality of the addition made in reassessment proceedings, we are not adjudicating on merit of the additions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member Appellant by Sh. Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Respondent by Sh. Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR ORDER Per O.P. Kant, A.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29/08/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hisar [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2009-10. 2. In the grounds of appeal raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the legality of reassessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) as well as additions made in reassessment proceeding. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a government contractor and filed return of income on 30/09/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 26,79,270/-. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cannot be made. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (supra) has held that when the ground of reopening do not exist any longer and no additions are ultimately made on that account, then addition on account of other items , which are no longer part of " reasons to believe" cannot be made. Similar finding has been given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT (2011) 242 CTR 117 (Del). We have to examine whether the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon'ble High Court apply in the case of the assessee. 7. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee, as available on page 2 of the paper book, are reproduced as under: "Return of income in this case was filed on 30.09,2009 declaring income of ₹ 26,79,270/- and the assessment was completed at income of ₹ 28.79,270/-. Perusal of the vouchers placed on file revealed that the assessee has got fabricated a tractor trolly from Garg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... educt tax on above expenses aggregating to ₹ 6,39,382/- (78,000 + 1,33,600 +1,56,660 +65540 + 75,492 +1,30,000) the same is required to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) and added back to the income of the assessee. The A.O. may examine other expenses with this point of view. I have therefore, reasons to believe that income of ₹ 6,39,382/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the A.O. subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. Issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 8. We find that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has expressed escapement of the income of ₹ 6,39,382/- on following items: 1. non-deduction of tax at source on u/s 194C for freight payment of ₹ 1,33,600/- paid to Haryana Concrete 2. non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194C on payment of ₹ 1,56,660/- to Ashok Crane Works for crane charges 3. non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C on payment of ₹ 65,540/- to Navratan Balaji for Crane service. 4. Non-deduction of tax at source .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orth ₹ 5,90,452/- and ₹ 2,04,15,441/- on account of wages and labour charges. Out of above expenses, the payable expenses remained at ₹ 5,26,851/- + ₹ 4,65,892/-. The Ld. ACIT has grossly rejected these payments which were to be made on account of crane charges and Boki charges and not out of the wages and labour charges which were ₹ 2,04,15,441/-. The assessee himself is a Govt, contractor supplying cables, Transformers, Electric poles, Wires, M.s Goods & Labour etc. All the above said payments were made in cash and below ₹ 20,000/-. These payments are related to labour work and the question of non deduction of TDS is not applicable. It is correct that a few of the labourers continuously engaged by the Contractor for disposal of his work. Therefore a few names of such labourer are repeated in the ledger to which these payments are made. No such labour contractor was engaged for this work and payments were made direct to the labour which is below ₹ 20,000/- in a day in every case. Thus the provisions of section for deduction of tax at source as provided under section 40(a) (ia) are not applicable in this case. All these payments were paid t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates