Buildquick Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Anand V. The Jt.CIT.,Anand Range, Anand

ITA 2878/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9696 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

.3 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER SR. NO. ITA AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 2878/AHD/2012 2009-10 BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD SANKALP, 5 TH FLOOR, OPP. ANAND PEOPLE CO-OP BANK, SARDAR GUNJ ROAD, ANAND PAN : AADCB 4069 Q JCIT, ANAND RANGE, ANAND 2-4 2170 TO 2172 /AHD/2012 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD SANKALP, 5 TH FLOOR, OPP. ANAND PEOPLE CO-OP BANK, SARDAR GUNJ ROAD, ANAND PAN : AADCB 4069 Q ITO (TDS) ANAND, ANAND ASSESSEE(S) BY : SMT. ARTI N. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SMT SONIA KUMAR, SR. DR. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2015 !' / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 #$ #$ #$ #$/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: ITA NO. 2878/AHD/2012 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, BARDOA DATED 08.11.2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10. I TA NOS. 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS)-IV, BARODA, ALL DATED 06.07.2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMM ON ISSUES, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 2878/AHD/2012 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASS ESSEE READS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,64,187/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERI VES INCOME FROM CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.48,64,187/- FOR LABOUR CHARGES WI THOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE PA YMENT U/S 40(A)(IA). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER:- ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ARE DULY CONSIDERED. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) AND 201 (1A) R.W.S. 194C OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ITO(TDS), THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE WORK I S EXCLUSIVELY CARRIED OUT BY GIVING CONTRACT TO LABOURERS. IT IS ALSO ACC EPTED BEFORE THE ITO (TDS) THAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE SINGLE PERSON TO EX ECUTE A PARTICULAR WORK IN A PARTICULAR PERIOD. THE PERSON PROVIDING THE LA BOURERS OBTAINS INCOME FOR SERVICES FROM THE GROUP OF LABOURERS. IN ALL TH E COPIES OF THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITO (TDS) ARE PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING MENTIONING SPECIFIC PROJECTS FOR THE SPE CIFIC PERIOD AND ALL THESE BILLS CONTAIN SIGNATURE OF PREPARERS AND SITE SUPER VISORS IN ADDITION TO THE SIGNATURE OF SUB-CONTRACTOR. THE SUB-CONTRACTORS IN THE AFORESAID BILLS ARE HAPPENED TO BE THE 14 PERSONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. FURTHER, ALL THESE PERSON ARE SHOWN AS CREDITORS IN THE BOOKS OF THE A SSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEES CONTE NTION THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACT FOR CARRYING OUT SPECIFIC WORK AND THE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM THESE PAYMENTS IS NOT TENABLE. MOREOVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 40(A)(IA) WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AFORESAID 14 PERSONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE OWING TO THE REASON THAT, ITO(TDS), ANAND HAS PASSE D AN ORDER U/S 201(1) ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIALS PRODUCED B EFORE HIM AND NO FRESH MATERIALS / EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED / FURNISHE D BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN ORDER TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS REGARD. TH E CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE AS THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS SUCH AS VOUCHERS SIGNED BY THE LABOURERS FO R THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PA YMENT WERE MADE ETC. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CO NTRARY TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS GIVEN TO THE AFORESAID 14 PERSON S, THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID DECISION CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 3 THEREFORE, IN AGREEMENT TO THE DECISION OF THE ITO( TDS), ANAND, THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES AGGR EGATING TO RS.48,64,187/- IS DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT (DISALLOWANCE RS.48,64,187/-) 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION; HE NCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO 14 LABOUR SUPERVISORS WHO BROUGHT THE LABOURERS. THAT THE PAYMENT TO THE LABOUR SUPERVIS ORS WAS A COLLECTIVE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE LABOURERS BROUGHT BY HIM. THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LABOUR SUPERV ISORS AND THEREFORE, SECTION 194C WAS NOT APPLICABLE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LT D VS. ITO, [2015] 370 ITR 222 (KARN.) II. ITO VS. TULSI RAM MODI, [2015] 53 TAXMANN.CO M 167 (JAIPUR-TRIB) III. DCIT VS. LAXMI PROTEIN PRODUCTS P. LTD, [2010] 3 ITR (TRIB) 768 (AHD) 6. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR PAYMENT WAS M ADE TO THE LABOUR SUPERVISORS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A Y 2008-09 AND NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) WAS MADE. SHE, THEREFORE , SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUST AINED BY THE CIT(A) U/S 40(A)(IA) AMOUNTING TO RS.48,64,187/- MAY BE DELETE D. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, ESPECIALLY PAG E NOS.12-13, PARAGRAPH NO. 7 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE 14 PERSONS TO WHOM THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID WERE NOT THE LABOUR SUPERV ISORS BUT THE LABOUR ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 4 CONTRACTORS WHO SUPPLIED THE LABOURERS TO THE ASSES SEE. THAT EVEN THEIR NAME APPEARED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS CREDITOR BECAUSE T HE PART OF THE LABOUR PAYMENT WAS OUTSTANDING. SHE ALSO REFERRED TO THE B ILLS ISSUED BY THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS FOR LABOUR PAYMENT AND REFERRED TO ONE OF SUCH BILLS WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.24 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK. SHE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID BILL THE NAME OF PROJECT, NAME OF SUB-CONTRACT OR, THE WORK AND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE WORK WAS DONE AND ALSO THE NUMBER OF LABOURERS SUPPLIED BY THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR ARE MENTIONED. SHE ALSO POIN TED OUT THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS ISSUED ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR. THESE FAC TS CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE LABOUR CONTRACTO R AND NOT TO THE LABOUR SUPERVISOR. THEREFORE, SECTION 194C WAS CLEARLY AP PLICABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX, WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT U/S 194C, THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR PAYMENT WAS RIGHTLY MADE U/S 40(A)(IA). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SECTION 19 4C READS AS UNDER:- 194C. (1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SU M TO ANY RESIDENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE CONTR ACTOR) FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT A NY WORK) IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A SPECIFIED PER SON SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO (I) ONE PER CENT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS BEING MADE O R CREDIT IS BEING GIVEN TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY; (II) TWO PER CENT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS BEING MADE O R CREDIT IS BEING GIVEN TO A PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDE D FAMILY, OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THERE IN. [ (2) WHERE ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) IS CREDITED TO ANY ACCOUNT, WHETHER CALLED 'SUSPENSE ACCOUNT' OR BY ANY OTHER N AME, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON LIABLE TO PAY SUCH INCOME, SU CH CREDITING SHALL BE DEEMED ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 5 TO BE CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE P AYEE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. (3) WHERE ANY SUM IS PAID OR CREDITED FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANATION, T AX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (I) ON THE INVOICE VALUE EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF MA TERIAL, IF SUCH VALUE IS MENTIONED SEPARATELY IN THE INVOICE; OR (II) ON THE WHOLE OF THE INVOICE VALUE, IF THE VALU E OF MATERIAL IS NOT MENTIONED SEPARATELY IN THE INVOICE. (4) NO INDIVIDUAL OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY SHALL B E LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME- TAX ON THE SUM CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF T HE CONTRACTOR WHERE SUCH SUM IS CREDITED OR PAID EXCLUSIVELY FOR PERSONAL PU RPOSES OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR ANY MEMBER OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. (5) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM THE AMOUNT OF A NY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, THE CONTRACTOR, IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED THIRTY THOUSAND RUPEES : FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SECTION 194C IS APPLICABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYI NG OUT ANY WORK. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.48,64, 187/- TO 14 PERSONS IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES. AS PER ASSESSEE, THOSE P ERSONS WERE SUPERVISORS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS MADE COLLECTIVELY FOR ALL THE LABOURERS WORKED UNDER HIM. AS PER REVENUE, THE 14 PERSONS WERE THE LABOU R CONTRACTORS WHO SUPPLIED THE LABOURERS TO THE ASSESSEE. LET US EXAM INE THE FACTS OF THE CASE SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAY MENT WAS MADE WERE LABOUR CONTRACTORS WHO SUPPLIED THE LABOURERS OR WE RE ONLY LABOUR SUPERVISORS. WE FIND THAT IN THE PAPER-BOOK THE ASS ESSEE HAS GIVEN THE BILLS/VOUCHERS ISSUED BY THOSE 14 PERSONS. AT PAGE NO.24, THERE IS A VOUCHER FOR LABOUR PAYMENT MADE TO AVINASH SONI. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE WHOLE VOUCHER WHICH IS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 6 BIPL F/PRJ/07A ABSTRACT PROJECT - M.P. RESORT DATE 30/05/2008 SUB CONTRACTOR AVINASH SONI BILL NO. 7 WORK :- UNSKILLED CIVIL WORK SHEET NO. 1 PERIOD :- 16/04/2008 TO 03/06/2008 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE PREVIOUS QTY PREVIOUS BILL AMOUNT THIS BILL QTY UPTO DATE QTY UPTO DATE AMOUNT RS. 1 DEPARTMENTAL UN- SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLY MD 100 3848.44 384,844 1,633.25 5,481.69 548,169 2 DEPARTMENTAL SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLY-MASON MD 200 1332.367 266,473 95.50 1,427.87 285,573 3 TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE FOR LABOUR 0 8,000 - - 8,000 4 SALARY 2500 6 15,000 1.00 7.00 17,500 5 EXTRA 10% RATE ON WORK DONE BETWEEN 15/3/2008 TO 15/4/2008 8,680 8,680 TOTAL 682,997 867,922 LESS-UPTO DATE AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS BILL 682,997 (A) TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THIS BILL 184,925 NOTE : - UP TO DATE 28/05/2008 TOTAL PAID AMOUNT RS. 749550/- SD/- SD/- SD/- PREPARED BY SUB-CONTRACTOR SITE INCHARGE NOTE :- SECURITY DEPOSIT. ADVANCE & INCOME TAX WILL BE DEDUCTED AT H.O. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE BILL /VOUCHER, AVINASH SONI TO WHOM THE PAYMENT IS MADE IS DESIGNATED AS SUB-CONT RACTOR. IN THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS UN -SKILLED/SKILLED LABOUR ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 7 SUPPLY. THE LABOUR SUPPLIER CHARGED RS.100/- PER MD (MAN DAYS) IN RESPECT OF UN-SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLIED BY HIM AND RS .200/- PER MD IN RESPECT OF SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLIED BY HIM. THERE IS MENTION OF PREVIOUS BILLS, TOTAL BILL UP TO THE PRESENT BILL, TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TILL D ATE (RS.8,67,922/-), TOTAL AMOUNT UP TO PREVIOUS BILL (RS.6,82,997) AND BILL AMOUNT OF THE PRESENT BILL (RS.1,84,925/)-. THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE UP TO 28.05 .2008 (RS.7,49,550/-) IS ALSO MENTIONED. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE BIL L/VOUCHER, THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO AVINA SH SONI WAS FOR SUPPLY OF LABOURER BY HIM. THIS WAS NOT THE PAYMENT TO A LABOUR SUPERVISOR FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE LABOURERS WORKED UNDER HIM. THE P AYMENT IS MADE TO AVINASH SONI FOR LABOURERS SUPPLIED BY HIM. SIMIL AR IS THE POSITION OF OTHER BILLS/VOUCHERS ISSUED BY OTHER LABOUR SUPPLIERS. ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL WOULD NOT BE APPLICA BLE. IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD (SUP RA), ADMITTEDLY, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE GROUP LEADER WHO IN TURN DI SBURSED THE AMOUNT TO HIS CO-EMPLOYEES. THE RELEVANT FACTS, AS NOTED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AT PAGE NO.225 OF (2015) 370 I TR READS AS UNDER:- 5. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING. THEY TAKE UP RURAL DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKS DIRECTLY BY ELIMINATING MIDDLEME N LIKE CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS TO AVOID EXPLOITATION OF THE RURAL POOR, THEREBY PASSING ON THE FULL WORTH OF MONEY TO THE PEOPLE. THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE CORPORATION TRANSFERS THE AMOUNT EARMARKED FOR SAID PROJECTS TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ENGINEER WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE SUCH PROJECT, WHO IS ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE SAID ENGINEER AT THE SPOT ENGAGES THE SERVICES OF THE WORKERS. PROBABLY, HE CANNOT GO IN SEARCH OF EMPLOY EES, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS GIVEN TO A PERSON WHO BRINGS THE LABOUR FORCE, WHO IS CALLED AS A GROUP LEADER. HE IS ALSO ONE AMONG THE WORKERS WHO IS ENGAGED IN EXECUTING THE WORKS. THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE GROUP LEADER, IN TURN WHO DI SBURSES THE AMOUNT TO HIS CO-EMPLOYEES. THUS, THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WERE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT THAN THE FACTS IN THE CASE UND ER APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 8 SAID CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO CONTRACTOR OR S UB-CONTRACTOR, BUT THE LABOURERS WERE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE GROUP LEADER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HIS CO-EMP LOYEES AND HE IN TURN DISTRIBUTED THE AMOUNT TO HIS CO-EMPLOYEES. THE FAC TS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE 14 PERSONS SUPPLIED MAN- POWER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ISSUED THE BILL FOR SUPPLY OF SKILLED/UN- SKILLED MAN-POWER FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE TO THEM . THUS, THE PAYMENTS TO THE 14 PERSONS WERE MADE IN THE CAPACITY OF LABO UR CONTRACTOR AND NOT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER LABOURERS. SIMILARLY, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF TULSI RAM MODI (SUPRA), BEFORE THE JAIPUR TRIBUNAL, WERE DIFF ERENT. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALES O F ALUMINIUM SECTIONS/PROFILES/PROFILES GLASS SHEETS, WOODEN/GYP SUM BOARDS, ETC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION AND FITTINGS OF SUCH MATERI AL AT CUSTOMERS PREMISES, CASUAL LABOURERS WERE EMPLOYED. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE CONTRACTOR FOR INSTALLATION AND FITTINGS OF SUCH MATERIAL AND THE CASUAL WORKERS BECAME SUB-CONTRACT ORS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE. IN OUR OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT THAN THE FACT S OF THE JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF TULSI RAM MODI (SUPRA). SIMILARLY, THE FAC TS IN THE CASE OF LAXMI PROTEIN PRODUCTS P. LTD (SUPRA) BEFORE THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT WERE ALSO DIFFERENT. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE LABOUR SUPERVISOR FOR AN ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER WORKERS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ITAT READ AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED MAY 8, 2007 AND IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD MADE PAYMENTS TO LABOURERS RATHER THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LABOURERS THROUGH THEIR M UKADUM, WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT IS NOT EXCE EDING THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AND ONCE THIS IS NOT THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 9 SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE O F THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. HERE THE 14 PERSONS SUPPLIED THE LABOURERS TO THE ASSESSEE ISSUED BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF LABOUR ERS SUPPLIED ON THE BASIS OF MAN-DAYS AND CHARGED SEPARATELY FOR SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLY AND FOR UN-SKILLED LABOUR SUPPLY. AGAINST THOSE BILLS, PAYMENT IS MAD E TO THOSE 14 PERSONS FROM TIME TO TIME AND SOME PAYMENT IS OUTSTANDING WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THESE FACTS AN D THE BILLS/VOUCHERS ISSUED BY THE 14 PERSONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS A CASE OF CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF LABOURER AND THEREFORE, SECTION 194C WAS SQUARELY A PPLICABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). A CCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 2170 TO 2172 /AHD/2012ASSESSEES APPEAL: AYS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 11. IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS, ONLY ONE GROUND IS RAISED WHICH READS AS UNDER:- AY 2009-10 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), ANAND HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO DEDUCT TAX OF RS.1,00,202/- U/S 201(1) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 AND L EVYING INTEREST OF RS.33,066/- U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THEREON. AY 2010-11 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), ANAND HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO DEDUCT TAX OF ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 10 RS.59,630/- U/S 201(1) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 AND LEV YING INTEREST OF RS.12,522/- U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THEREON. AY 2011-12 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), ANAND HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO DEDUCT TAX OF RS.4,22,891/- U/S 201(1) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 AND L EVYING INTEREST OF RS.38,060/- U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THEREON. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITT ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AS WELL AS LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE FA CTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2878/AHD/2012. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAY MENTS TO FEW PERSONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AS LABOUR SUPERVISORS, B UT AS PER REVENUE THEY WERE NOT THE SUPERVISORS BUT THE CONTRACTORS WHO SU PPLIED THE LABOURERS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE TDS OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN DEDUCTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS, THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED TO BE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A); HENCE, THESE A PPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNS EL FAIRLY STATED THAT HER ARGUMENT IS THE SAME AS MADE WHILE ARGUING ITA NO.2 878/AHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALS O STATED THAT HER ARGUMENTS ARE ALSO SAME WHICH WERE ADVANCED WHILE A RGUING THE AFORESAID APPEAL. 14. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOT H THE SIDES WHILE DISPOSING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE ITA NO.2878 /AHD/2012 AND FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 8 TO 10, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED THE LABOURERS WERE LABOUR CONT RACTORS AND THEREFORE, ITA NOS.2878 & 2170 TO 2172/AHD/2012 - BUILDQUICK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 11 TAX OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194C. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIG HTLY TREATED THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). WE, THEREFOR E, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/07/2015 BIJU T., PS #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. () / THE APPELLANT 2. %*() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ++ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &/0 % , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 02 3 / GUARD FILE . #$ #$ #$ #$ / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 4 44 4/ // / +5 +5 +5 +5 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD