IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 30 53 /AHD/201 1 A. Y. 200 8 - 0 9 M/S. UTTARA BROILERS BREEDERS & HATCHERIES, OPP. IRRIGATION COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, AT & PO;KUNDH, CHIKLI. PAN: AABFU 6347D VS ITO, NAVSARI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S HRI P.L. KUREEL SR. D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 / 0 4 /201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 / 0 4 /201 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER TH IS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y S . 200 7 - 0 8 , ARISE S FROM ORDER OF THE CIT (A) VALSAD DATED 10 .09.2011 PASSED I N CASE NO. 251 / 09 - 10 AFFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION IN DISALLOW ING SALARY AND WAGES OF RS.5,66,600/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS , IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSE SSEE - FIRM IS IN POULTRY AND HATCHERY BUSINESS. IT FILED RETURN ON 10.10.2007 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.3,89,290/ - . THE SAME WAS PROCESSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY. THE ITA NO. 30 53 /AHD/201 1 M/S. UTTARA BROILERS BREEDERS & HATCHERIES FOR A.Y. 200 7 - 0 8 - 2 - ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED WAGES AND SALARY EXPENSES AT RS.15,60,664/ - DEBITED/PAI D TO CONTRACT BREEDING FARM WORKERS.. NO TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO INVOKE SECTION 40(A)(IA). HE QUOTED ASSESSEE S FAILURE IN FILING A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR NON TDS DEDUCTION ON THE AFORESAID PAYMENT AND MADE THE IMPUGNED D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,60,664/ - U/S.40(A)(IA) ACCORDINGLY IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION APPLYING SECTION 194C OF THE ACT QUA THE IMPUGNED SALARY AND WAGES PAYMENT S. HE OBSERVES THAT THE PAYEES IN QUESTION ARE ASSESSEE S REGULAR EMPLOYEES GETTING YEARLY REMUNERATION. HOWEVER, HE HAS RESTRICTED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,60,664/ - TO RS.5,66,600/ - BY OBSERVING THAT ONLY NINE WORKERS HAVE RECEIVED SALARY A ND WAGES EXCEEDING TO RS.50,000/ - IN EACH CASE. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 4. CASE CALLED TWICE. THE ASSESSEE S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD FILE AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER ON 18.4.2015. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ONE TO PURSUE THE SAME. THUS , WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT PRAYER AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. IT STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CIT(A) S ORDER . IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE PAYEES IN QUESTION ARE THE ASSESSEE S REGULAR EMPLOYEES GETTING YEARLY REMUNERATION. THIS MAKES US TO OBSERVE THAT THE CLAIM OF WAGES IN QUESTION IS THEIR SALARY AMOUNTS. THAT ITA NO. 30 53 /AHD/201 1 M/S. UTTARA BROILERS BREEDERS & HATCHERIES FOR A.Y. 200 7 - 0 8 - 3 - BEING THE CASE, THERE IS HARDLY ANY SCOPE OF A SECOND OPINION THAT TDS DEDUCTION ON SALARY PAYMENTS IS COVERED BY A S PECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION I.E. SECTION 192 INSTEAD OF THAT INVOKED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES I.E. SECTION 194C. IT IS NOT THE REVENUE S CASE THAT ANY OF THE ASSESSEE S EMPLOYEE EARNS SALARY INCOME MORE THAN THE EXEMPTION LIMIT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. THEREFORE WE DIFFER WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS LEGALITY PRINCIPLE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.194C R.W.S 40(A)(IA). WE REITERATE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A CHARGING PROVISION IN A FISCAL STATUTE LIABLE TO BE LITERALLY INTERPR ETED. THE ASSESSEE S GROUNDS ON MERITS SUCCEED. 6. THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS DAY, THE 30 TH APRIL, 201 5 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30 / 0 4 / 20 1 5 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI , SR. P . S . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD