DCIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, Amaravati V. M/S SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, PARATWADA

ITA 16/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1698 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: R B ATAL
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 16/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMBA PETH AMRAVATI 444 601 APPELLANT V/S M/S. SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES SADAR BAZAR, PARATWADA DISTRICT AMRAVATI 444 601 PAN AADFS2333R .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.B. ATAL DATE OF HEARING 19.08.2015 DATE OF ORDER 28.08 .2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING FROM TH E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4 TH OCTOBER 2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 200809, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: M/S. SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 2 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENTS M ADE TO EACH OF THE PERSON AND NOT EXCEED ` 20,000 AT A TIME. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALL OWANCES CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, AS PRIMA FACIE NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE PAYM ENTS MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF, AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING AS SESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 ST DECEMBER 2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AT ` 64,40,440, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE TWO ADDITIONS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A )(IA) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY OF ` 29,88,150 AND ` 59,64,000. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENDITURE OF FREIGHT AND VEHICLE RENT AS F OLLOWS:- MALL MOTOR FREIGHT ` 25,15,519 JEEP RENT ` 6,96,000 LOADER BHADA ` 5,76,000 ROLLER BHADA ` 7,20,000 TRUCK RENT ` 45,33,000 ` 65,25,000 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF HIRE CHAR GES PAID TO THE TRANSPORTER WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SEPARATEL Y DEBITED. A PARTY-WISE BREAK-UP WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH WAS M/S. SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 3 REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF A SUM OF ` 34,64,650, NO TDS DEDUCTED ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE TRANSPORTER, HENCE, INFRIN GED THE PROVISIONS O SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. A LIST OF 39 PAR TIES WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WHOM FREIGHT, E TC., WERE PAID WITHOUT TDS. OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM OF ` 34,64,650, AN AMOUNT OF ` 4,76,500, WAS STATED TO BE CREDITED, HENCE, NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED, THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 29,88,150, WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS UND ER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXPENDITURE SUCH AS J EEP RENT, TRUCK RENT, ROLLER RENT, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOTED THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON 31 ST MARCH 2008 BUT DEPOSITED ON 23 RD APRIL 2008. HE HAS SHORT LISTED THE DISALLOWANCE AS UNDER:- JEEP RENT ` 6,38,000 LOADER RENT ` 5,28,000 ROLLER RENT ` 6,60,000 TRUCK RENT ` 41,38,000 ` 59,64,000 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, A FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD NOT DISPUTED THAT EITHER THE PAYMENT TO EACH TRUCK OWNER, ALTHOUGH, M/S. SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 4 HAS NOT EXCEEDED ` 20,000 AT A TIME NOR THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR HAD EXCEEDED ` 50,000. AFTER RECORDING THIS FINDING WHICH WAS BASED UPON THE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF ` 29,88,150, WAS DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ADDITION, HE HAS CONSIDERED THE AMENDED PROVISIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE DUE DATE HAS BEEN DEFINED. THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2 008 AND THE SAME WAS PAID IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING FEW DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HE HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION WAS UNWARRANTED. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE REMAND REPORT AND THE EVIDENCES O N RECORD. IN A SITUATION WHEN A LIST OF THE PARTIES WAS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EACH PAYMENT PER DAY WA S LESS THAN RS 20,000, AND IN A FINANCIAL YEAR IT HAD NOT EXCEEDED RS 50,000, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY MATERIAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THOSE FACTS AND JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. LIKEWISE, THE AM ENDED PROVISIONS M/S. SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 5 HAVE COME INTO FORCE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE DUE DATE HAS BEEN DEFINED. MOREOVER, THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED IN THE MONT H OF MARCH AND PAID IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWED FEW DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE GROUND RAISED BY TH E REVENUE AND, HENCE, DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2015 SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 28.08.2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NAGPUR