Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Sandeep Jagdhane Associates & Venkatkrishna JV., Pune

ITA 744/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9493 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 744/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ITO, WARD - 3(1), PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S M/S. SANDEEP JAGDHANE ASSOCIATES & VENKATKRISHNA JV, 6, SUSHEELA APARTMENTS, 14 TH LANE, PRABHAT ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE 411 004 PAN : AAABS2611K . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, CIT / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, PUNE DATED 16-02-2015 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12. 2. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS BOTH THE C OUNSELS MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELAT ES TO APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C R.W.S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING A JOINT VENTURE ENTITY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENT IONED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF THE PUNE / DATE OF HEARING :29.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.05.2017 2 ITA NO.744/PUN/2015 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SWAPNA LI RDS JOINT VENTURE VIDE ITA NO.771/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 26-09-2012. THE SAI D DECISION IS RELEVANT FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT, IN A CASE OF JOINT VENT URE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE THE ASSESSEES JOINT VENTURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTRACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS, IF ANY, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONSTITUENTS OF JOINT VENTURE ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, SECTION 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT APPLY. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH IN THE MATTER FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SWAPNALI RDS JOINT VENTURE (SUPRA) THE REQUEST FOR TREATING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL, STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OF THE DECISION OF PUN E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SWAPNALI RDS JOINT VENTURE (SUPRA). WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED PARA 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. RELEVANT LINES AS PER THE SAID PARAGRAPH ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 04. . . . . . . . . THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN COMPLETE RECEIPTS A RE IN NATURE OF CONTRACTS RECEIPTS, WHICH ARE SHARED AMONGST THE CO-VENTURES VIZ., 1. SHRI SANDEEP JAGDHANE AND ASSOCIATES AND 2. SHRI VENKATKRISHNA C ONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THUS THE INCOME IS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE COVENTURES AND ITS RESULTS INTO THE REFUND OF TDS WHICH IS DEDUCTED. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE STATED LEGAL POSITION AS W ELL AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONCLUSION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3.6 IS REASONABLE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS TH E SAID PARAGRAPH IS EXTRACTED BELOW : 3 ITA NO.744/PUN/2015 3.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANTS CASE IS FOUND TO BE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT PUNE IN THE CASE OF SWAMPANLI RDS JOINT VENTURE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, WHI CH IS BASED ON IDENTICAL ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA ) MADE BY THE AO OF RS.14,88,88,898/- IS HELD TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE AS WE LL AS THE BASIC FACTS ARE HELD TO BE IDENTICAL AS HELD BY THE CIT(A). FURTHE R, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYT HING CONTRARY BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THIS SOLITARY ISSU E RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 29 TH MAY, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - 3 , PUNE 4. CIT - 3 , PUNE 5. , , B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.