Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3532 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-02-2020
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
G
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
10-03-2016
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI , ! ' $% . & , ( ) ! BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT & DR.B.R. R.KUMAR, AM * / ITA NO.1340/DEL/2016 + , , / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE ITO, WARD-2(2), CGO COMPLEX-2, KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. .......... -. /APPELLANT VS RGB TGHCL JV, ARUNIMA PALACE, GH-4, SECTOR-4, VASUNDHARA, GHAZIABAD. PAN-AAMFR4681A . /0-. / RESPONDENT -.12 / APPELLANT BY : DR.ANJULA JAIN, SR.DR /0-.12 / RESPONDENT BY : SH.AKUL AGARWAL, CA 13( / DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2020 45 13( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 .02.2020 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA,VP THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(A), ALIGARH DATED 17.12.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AT RS.1.57 C RORES (APPROX.). ITA NO.1340/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 2 3. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE WA S A JOINT VENTURE FIRM CONSISTING OF ITS PARTNERS NAMELY M/S. TARUNIKA GAU R HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., 370 PANDIT PARK, KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI AND M/S. R.G. BUILDWELL ENGINEERS LTD., DURGAPURI, SHAHDARA, DELH I HAVING 10% & 90% RESPECTIVELY, INTEREST IN VENTURE. THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED CONTRACT FO R ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF 35 KM FROM ANTAGARH TO BEDMA FOR A TOTAL COST OF RS.49 ,71,27,588/- IN THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON 05.10.20 10, BETWEEN RGB- TGHCL, JOINT VENTURE AND M/S. TARUNIKA GAUR HOUSIN G & CONSTRICTION LTD., DELHI, SUB CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD AT A TOTAL COST OF RS.44,74,00,000/- FOR 35 KM LONG ROAD FROM ANTAGAR TO BEDMA, CHHATTISGARH. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THE UNSE CURED LOAN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET WAS THE ADVANCE WHICH WAS RECEIVED FR OM PWD DEPARTMENT, CHHATTISGARH, TO START THE WORK OF ROAD CONSTRUCTIO N AND ADVANCE TO CONTRACTOR WAS THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO ITS SUB CONTRACT OR M/S. TARUNIKA GAUR HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., DELHI, OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM PWD CHHATTISGARH. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD BEEN FOUND THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAD PAID RS.1,57 CROR ES (APPROX.) AS ROAD MAKING CHARGES TO ITS SUB CONTRACTOR M/S. TARUNIKA GAUR HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND IT WAS ASKED FROM THE ASSESSE E WHETHER ANY TDS HAD BEEN MADE ON ABOVE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THE TDS AMOUNTING RS.3,14,361/- HAD BEEN DEDUCTED, BUT NOT PAID TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE A LSO CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS ITA NO.1340/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 3 THE SECOND YEAR OF STARTING THE WORK OF ROAD CONSTR UCTION. THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED IN THE F.Y. 2010-11, BECAU SE IT HAD RECEIVED A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF A BID VIDE ITS MEMO NO.3429 /G/27- 28/09/LWE/KANKAR DATED 13.09.2010 FROM PWD DEPARTME NT, CHHATTISGARH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.1.57 CRORES (APPROX.) TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT TAX ON SUM OF RS.1.57 CRORES (APPROX.) HAS BEEN PAID BY M/ S. TARUNIKA GAUR HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., DELHI. THE CIT(A) THU S HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT ANY TAX AT SOU RCE AND HENCE, NO MERIT IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE 2 ND PROVISO INSERTED U/S 43B OF THE ACT WAS DIRECTORY IN NATURE AS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD R EPORTED IN 377 ITR 635 (DEL.). HE ALSO POINTED OUT WHERE THE DEDUCTEE HAD PAID THE TAXES AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN SHRI THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT VS CIT IN ITA NO.278/2014 ORDER DATED 03.07.2015. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.1340/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 4 IN DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING AND DEPOSITING THE TAX AT SOURCE ESPECIALLY IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE DEDUCTEE H AD ALREADY PAID THE TAXES ON THE INCOME RECEIVED BY IT AND FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME IN TIME. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD (SUPRA). SINCE THE ISSUE IS SETTLED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REL IANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT (SUPRA ). HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (DR.B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ( ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT / DATED : FEBRUARY, 2020 * AMIT KUMAR * 61/+378983: COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ;3 < = / THE CIT(A) 4. > ;3 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. 8?@/+3+ A A / DR, ITAT, DELHI @$,B: GUARD FILE. 6 / BY ORDER, 083/+3 //TRUE COPY// C D)E , A ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI
