IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM ITA No. 2845/PUN/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Sparkline Equipments Pvt. Ltd., F-11 Block, Plot No. 38, MIDC Pimpri, Pune-411 018. AACCS5871L Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Cir. 6, Pune. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing : 10-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 06-10-2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal on record. 1. The ld. A.O has erred in disallowing the expenses on account of non- payment on Works contract u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, of Rs. 15,21,113/-. 2. The appellant craves right to add, alter, delete, modify or amend any change or all the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 2. The only grievance of the assessee is the disallowance made by the ld. A.O and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for non-payment of TDS on Works Contract u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) of Rs. 15,21,113/-. The relevant facts are that the ld. A.O on perusal of the Annexure-4 of Tax Audit Report discovered that out of three amounts of TDS shown as “not paid”, one amount of TDS deducted being Rs. 2 ITA No. 2845/PUN/2017 Sparkline Equipments Pvt.Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 30,426/- on account of TDS for Works Contracts remained unpaid even after filing of the return. The ld. A.R was requested to furnish evidences in corresponding to the amount paid towards Works Contracts. That accordingly, the ld. A.R submitted a challan of Rs. 30,426/- dated 28-12-2013 claiming it to be TDS paid on the expenses of Rs. 15,21,233/- towards Works Contract. On perusal of the aforesaid challan, it was noticed by the ld. A.O that the challan was for payment of taxes as per “MVAT Rules 2005” and not for the Act. Therefore, the challan was not accepted as a proof for payment of TDS and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 15,21,133/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. That before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had reiterated the submissions made before the ld. A.O The ld. CIT(A) specifically directed the assessee to submit relevant Rules or Circular in support of its argument that according to MVAT Rules, the assessee was not required to make TDS and that also the provisions of MVAT Rules over-rides the expressed TDS provisions of the Act. However, the assessee was not able to furnish any such legal provisions or circular in support of its argument. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the ld. .A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was confirmed. 4. At the time of hearing before us, there was no appearance for and on behalf of the assessee and also neither the assessee appeared in person nor any adjournment petition was filed. It is a fact on record that hearing notice was served on the assessee at its Registered address. That on perusal of the Order sheet, we also find that there has been repeated non-compliance of hearing notices by the assessee before us time and again. Under the circumstances, the very fact that this is an old appeal and we have to dispose it of in a reasonable time, we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits recording the submissions of the ld. D.R and as per the materials available on 3 ITA No. 2845/PUN/2017 Sparkline Equipments Pvt.Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 record. That on perusal of the challan copy submitted before the ld. A.O which has also been made part of the assessment order, it is evident that the said challan is for payment of taxes as per MVAT Rules 2005 and not in respect of TDS payment as per the Act. That even, the ld. CIT(A) has given an opportunity to the assessee to furnish any Circular, Ruling or Authoritative Order to demonstrate that the payment made under the MVAT Rules 2005 shall over-ride the provisions of the TDS payment enshrined in the Act and that making payment under such MVAT Rules, the assessee would be absolved from the obligation of making TDS payment as per the Act. No explanations were furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) nor any documents/evidences before us were furnished. In such scenario, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the ld. A.O. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We therefore, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the said disallowance. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 14 th day of March 2022 (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated, the 14 th March 2022 Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT Pune 4. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 5. D.R. ITAT „A‟ Bench 5. Guard File BY ORDER, ///TRUE COPY/// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. 4 ITA No. 2845/PUN/2017 Sparkline Equipments Pvt.Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 Date 1 Draft dictated on 10-03-2022 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 11-03-2022 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 14-03-2022 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of order 14-03-2022 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 14-03-2022 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order