M/s. Apex Construction, Kheda V. The Dy.CIT.,Kheda Circle, Nadiad

ITA 3083/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0947 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.3083/AHD/2011 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-2006 M/S.APEX CONSTRUCTION PATELWADA, OPP: BANK OF BARODA KAPADWANJ DIST. KHEDA 387 7620 PAN : AAEFA 2295 P VS DCIT, KHEDA CIRCLE NADIAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-IV, BARODA DATED 14.9.2011 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, BUT ITS GRIEVANCES REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE, VIZ. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,00,124/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 4.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,900/-. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IT HAS INCURRED EXPENDIT URE ON LABOUR PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS: ITA NO.3083/AHD/2011 2 SL.NO. NAME OF THE PAYEE DATE OF CREDIT/ PAYMENT AMOUNT CREDITED/ PAID (RS.) 1. SHRI PATEL JAYESHBHAI SHANKERBHAI 04.06.2004 225031 2. SHRI PATEL ASHOKBHAI SHANKERBHAI 04.06.2004 225031 3. SHRI PATEL ANKITBHAI MAGANBHAI 04.06.2004 225031 4. SHRI RATHOD BABUBHAI RUPABHAI 04.06.2004 225031 TOTAL 900124 4. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGH T TO HAVE DEDUCTED TDS AS PER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE. THE APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS WHETHER THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTO R OR TO THE LEADERS OF THE LABOURERS. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT MOST OF THE LABOURERS WERE ILLITERATE, KEEP ON CHANGING THEIR RESIDENCES. IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO APPRAISE THEM EXACT CALCULATION, THEREFORE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE LEADER OF THE LABOURERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE LABOUR ERS FROM ANY LABOUR CONTRACTOR. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BE LIED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD COLLECTED BY THE AO TO REJECT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO NEITHER EXAMINED THE ALLEGED SUB-CONTRACTOR NOR ANYONE-ELSE. HE SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MY ITA NO.3083/AHD/2011 3 OPINION, THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/08/2016