M/s. Randhir Singh & Sons, Rohtak V. ITO, Sonepat

ITA 4156/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 415620114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4156 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 10 - 11 RANDHIR SINGH & SONS VS. ITO, WARD 4 C/O NAVIN GUPTA, ADV. I NCOME T AX O FFICE , SONEPAT H.NO.60, GREEN ROAD OPP. MALABAR GUEST HOUSE ROHTAK PAN: AAKFR 1139 H A N D ITA NO. 4157 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 10 - 11 SHYAM JI BHATTA CO. VS. ITO, WARD 4 C/O NAVIN GUPTA, ADV. INCOME TAX OFFICE H.NO.60, GREEN ROAD SONEPAT OPP. MALABAR GUEST HOUSE ROHTAK 124 001 PAN: AAPFM 0847 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVIN GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. MK JAIN , SR.D.R. ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 18.5.2015 AND 28.4.2015 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPO SED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA 4156/DEL/15 RANDHIR SINGH & SONS ITA 4157/DEL/15 SHYAM JI BHATTA CO. A.Y. 2010 - 11 2 2. I HAVE HEARD SHRI NAVIN GUPTA, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MK JAIN, LD.SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT COMES UP FOR MY ADJUDICATION, IS WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40 A (I)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT ) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. BOTH THE ASSESSES ARE RUNNING BRICK KILN AT V ILLAGE LADRAWAN, TEHSIL BAHDURGARH, JHAJJAR. FOR DIFFERENT STAGES OF BRICK MAKING , EXPENSES SUCH AS P ATHAI EXPENSES, B HARAI EXPENSES , NIKASI EXPENSES ARE INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT, WAGES ARE PAID TO LABOURERS UNDER THE SUPER VISION OF A THEKEDAR. THE ASSESSEE ARGUES THAT THIS IS NOT A PAYMENT MADE TO A LABOUR CONTRACTOR HENCE NO TDS WAS MADE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENT ION THE WAGES REGISTER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S CASE IS THAT, THE AMOUNT IS PAID TO A LABOUR CONTRACTOR, WHO IN THIS CASE IS A THEKEDAR AND THAT THE PAYMENT IS N OT MADE DIRECT LY TO THE WORKERS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF S.194C OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. 5. ON PERUSING THE EVIDENCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ON FACTS THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION I.E. WAGES, HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY PAID TO THE WORKERS. IT WAS DONE UNDER THE S UPER VISION OF THE IN - CHARGE CALLED THEKEDAR. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE THEKEDAR CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A LABOUR CONTRACTOR . T HE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR FINDING THAT THE THEKEDAR IS IN FACT A LABOUR CONTRACTOR . ON T HE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AMPLE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT WAGES ARE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE LABOURERS. 6. HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF S.194C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE CANNOT BE ANY D ISALLOWANCE U/S 40 A (I)(A) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED AND THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ITA 4156/DEL/15 RANDHIR SINGH & SONS ITA 4157/DEL/15 SHYAM JI BHATTA CO. A.Y. 2010 - 11 3 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH NOVEMBER ,2015. SD/ - (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 09 TH NOV. , 2015 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR