THE ITO., WARD - 3(1), Vijayawada V. The Executive Engineer,Panchayatraj Division, Machilipatnam

ITA 333/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80102 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D MANOJ KUMAR
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH , VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 333/V/12 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATRAJ DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM PAN HYDE00810F 2 334/V/12 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 3 335/V/12 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 4 496/V/12 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA -DO- 5 497/V/12 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 6 498/V/12 2010-11 -DO- -DO- AND SL.NO. C.O AY CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 7 23/V/13 (IN ITA NO. 496/V/12) 2008-09 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATRAJ DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM PAN HYDE00810F INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA 8 24/V/13 (IN ITA NO. 497/V/12) 2009-10 -DO -DO- 9 25/V/13 (IN ITA NO. 498/V/12) 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 2 ITA NOS. 333 TO 335/VIZ/2012, 496 TO 498/VIZ/12 & COS 23 TO 25/VIZ/12 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILI PATNAM REVENUE BY SHRI D. MANOJKUMAR ASSESSEE BY SHRI G.V.N. HARI DATE OF HEARING 03-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03-07-2014 O R D E R PER BENCH.: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. APPEALS IN ITA NO. 333 TO 335/VIZ/2012 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDE R OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA, DATED 18/04/2012, WHICH IN TURN, WAS AG AINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 496 TO 498/VIZ/2012 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 31/07/2012, WHICH IN TURN, WAS AGAINST THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED C.OS., ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 496 TO 498/V/12. AS IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVO LVED IN THESE APPEALS AND C.OS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS AND C.OS. ARE DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TH E EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM. THE AO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON PAYMENTS OF AMOUNTS FOR WOR KS EXECUTED UNDER THE ACDP SCHEME; AMOUNTS PAID FOR HIRE CHARGES FOR USE OF OFFICIAL CAR, AND THE AMOUNTS PAID TO CONTRACT WORKERS. IT WAS AL SO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS IN CASE OF EMPLOYEES O F PR DIVISION. THERE WAS A DELAY IN REMITTANCE OF TDS AFTER DEDUCTION OF AMOUNTS PAID TO CONTRACT WORKERS. THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT. 3. ON APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN IDEN TICAL ORDERS CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TAX IN A SSESSEES CASE ON 3 ITA NOS. 333 TO 335/VIZ/2012, 496 TO 498/VIZ/12 & COS 23 TO 25/VIZ/12 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILI PATNAM PAYMENTS MADE UNDER ACDP SCHEME, AS THE BENEFICIARI ES HAVE CONSTITUTED THEMSELVES INTO VILLAGE COMMITTEES, SEL F-HELP GROUPS, ETC. AND HAVE EXECUTED THE WORK, HAVING TAKEN THE SAME FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. HE, FURTHER, HELD THAT THERE IS CONTRAC T, PER SE, AS THE BENEFICIARIES THEMSELVES HAVE EXECUTED THE WORK AND THERE IS NO MIDDLEMEN OR CONTRACTOR, IN EFFECT. AFTER OBSERVIN G AS SUCH, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHER EVER THE WORKS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE BENEFICIARIES THEMSELVES THROU GH VILLAGE COMMITTEES OR SELF-HELP GROUPS, DEMANDS RAISED WERE DIRECTED TO BE REDUCED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED DR, SHRI D. MANOJKUMAR SUBMITS THAT ACDP SCHEME IS NOT LIKE NREP AND RLEGP SCHEMES AND THAT PAYMENTS A RE MADE UNDER ACDP SCHEME IN LUMP SUM FOR EACH CONTRACT WORK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WE RE WRONG. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI G.V.N. HARI, ON THE OTHER HAND, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN B Y THE CIT(A) AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPEL LANT TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL THE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE BE NEFICIARIES THEMSELVES THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF VILLAGE COMMITTEES , SELF-HELP GROUPS, ETC., AND THEN AFTER, IS DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE DEMAND RAISED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE WORKS EXE CUTED UNDER THE ACDP SCHEME BY THE BENEFICIARIES THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF VILLAGE COMMITTEES, SELF-HELP GROUPS ETC. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PREJUDIC E CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE. THE C IT(A) CLEARLY STATED 4 ITA NOS. 333 TO 335/VIZ/2012, 496 TO 498/VIZ/12 & COS 23 TO 25/VIZ/12 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILI PATNAM THAT WHEREVER THE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY T HE BENEFICIARIES THEMSELVES THROUGH MEDIUM OF VILLAGE COMMITTEES, SE LF-HELP GROUPS ETC. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AS THERE IS NO CONTRACT PER SE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN SUCH CONCLUSIONS. T HE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND TO REDUCE THE DEMAND WHEREVER THE WORKS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE BENEFI CIARIES THEMSELVES. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN SUCH DIRECTIONS. THE AO CAN VERIFY THE FACTS AND DISPOSE OF THE CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON TH IS COUNT AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. THE C.OS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN SUP PORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND SINCE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY US IN REVENUE APPEALS (SUPRA), THE C.OS. BECOME INFRUCTUO US AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE AND THE C.OS. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/07/2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 3 RD JULY, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA 2) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHI LIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3) CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4) CIT(TDS), HYDERABAD 5)THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., VIZAG. 5 ITA NOS. 333 TO 335/VIZ/2012, 496 TO 498/VIZ/12 & COS 23 TO 25/VIZ/12 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILI PATNAM DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER