IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 239/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD VS M/S. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV), HYDERABAD [PAN: AAEFH0901P] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI P. CHANDRASEKHAR, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A. SRINIVAS, AR DATE OF HEARING : 31-08-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-09-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD D ATED 21-12-2015 FOR THE AY. 2012-13. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE-AOP IS A JOINT VENTURE BETW EEN M/S. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERS SYNDICATE & M/S. RATNA CONSTRUCTION S, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, FORMED A JOINT VENTURE IN THE NAME OF HINDUSTAN RATNA JV FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION OF BIDS AND EXECUTION OF WORKS OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRO JECTS FOR MEDIUM SIZED PACKAGES IN ANDHRA PRADESH REFERRED TO AS PROJECT. ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.201 2-13 ON I.T.A. NO. 239/HYD/2016 M/S. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV) :- 2 -: 29-09-2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,42,160/- A ND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 39,2 1,29,322/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 39,18,87,664/- U/S. 40( A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT]. 3. LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND DELETED TH E ADDITION BY STATING AS UNDER: 05.0. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE RS. 40,26,04,114/- WHICH WER E GIVEN FOR SUB- CONTRACT ON BACK TO BACK BASIS TO ITS JV PARTNERS. AS PER THE TDS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, IT HAD DEDUCTED TAX ON RS. 1,07,16,450/- ONLY AND NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 39,18,87,664/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REJECTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE JV AND ITS CONSTITUENT M EMBERS DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP AN D CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX U/S. 194C. HE DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 39,18,87,664/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT . 05.1. A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE AY. 2009-10 AND 201 0-11. THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 372/HYD/2013, DATED 18/12 /2013 HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUB-CONTRACT BETWEEN THE JV AND T HE CONSTITUENTS AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C WERE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS FOLLOWED BY ITAT IN ITA NO. 1575/HYD/2014 DATED 12/02/2015 FOR AY. 2010-11. RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN APPELLANTS O WN CASE FOR THE AY. 2009-10 AND 2010-11, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA ) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD.AR FOR ASSESSEE PLACED C OPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY. 2010-11, WHEREIN THE ITAT AFTER CONSI DERING THE ISSUE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 239/HYD/2016 M/S. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV) :- 3 -: 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL F OR ANY INTERFERENCE, SINCE IT WAS BASED UPON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, CITED SUPRA. WE THEREFORE DISMI SS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV), PLOT NO. 39, 8-2-293/A4/A14, B.N. REDDY COLONY, ROAD NO. 14, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6 , HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.