M/S SAI BUILDERS C/O JAI PRAKASH SHARMA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/11/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Sai Builders, the appellant, who contested the decision of the Income Tax Officer regarding the disallowance of certain deductions claimed in the assessment year 2008-09. The dispute centered on the non-deduction of TDS on payments made to sub-contractors. The Income Tax Officer had disallowed the deductions amounting to Rs. 5,45,000, citing non-compliance with the TDS provisions under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the assessing officer's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by M/s Sai Builders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747190 (HC-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURAV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: M B MANGAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Deductions Disallowed; Income Tax; Sub-contractors; TDS
• Section: 194

Judgement Text

"1 I.T.A No. 11/2014 M/s Sai Builders Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Gwalior 30/9/2014 Shri M.B. Mangal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Saurav Jain, Advocate for respondent. Heard. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.6.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in Case No. 72/Agra/2014. Dispute is in regard to assessment year 2008-09. The assessing authority disallowed the deductions of Rs.5,45,000/- for the reasons assigned by the authority in the assessment order dated 24.12.2010 while disallowing the deducting for computing tax liability, the authority has recorded the following finding : 5- Bsdk ,oa ykHkgkfu [kkrs dk voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k fd djnkrk QeZ us lc Bsds (Sub Contractors)en esa 10]64]300@& dk Hkqxrku djuk crk;k gSA laoh{kk dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku lc Bsds ds :i esa fdu&fdu Bsdsnkjksa dks Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k dk C;kSjk izLrqr djus gsrq dgk x;k ftlds vuqikyu esa mUgksaus crk;k fd mijksDr jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fofHkUu lc Bsdsnkjksa dks fd;k x;k gS ftldk fooj.k izLrqr fd;k ftldh tkap djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh thou flag Bsdsnkj dks fn0 05-11-07 dks :0 85]000@& ,oa fn0 29-11-07 dks :0 1]50]000@& dqy :0 2]35]000@&] Jh vtqZu flag] Bsdsnkj dks fn0 12-02-08 dks :0 1]25]000@& ,oa Jh lhrkjke flag] Bsdsnkj dks fn0 31-03-08 dks :0 1]85]000@& bl izdkj dqy :0 5]45]000@& dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS tks fd o\"kZ ds nkSjku :0 50]000@& ls vf/kd gSA vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 194lh esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;fn Bsdsnkj }kjk lc Bsdsnkj dks o\"kZ ds nkSjku ,d O;fDr dks :0 50]000@& ls vf/kd jkf'k dk 2 I.T.A No. 11/2014 Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS ;k ,d eq'r jkf'k 20]000@& ;k mlls vf/kd dh tkrh gS rks HkqxrkudrkZ dh ;g ftEesnkjh curh gS fd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k ij vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 ds varxZr dj dVkSrh djsaA pwafd djnkrk QeZ }kjk foRrh; o\"kZ ds nkSjku mijksDr rhuksa lc Bsdsnkjksa dks :0 50]000@& ls vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k gS ftlesa rhuksa dk dqy ;ksx :0 5]45]000@& ¼235000$125000$185000½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ftlij Vh0Mh0,l0 dh dVkSrh djus esa djnkrk QeZ vlQy jgh ftls Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl laca/k esa izkf/kd`r izfrfuf/k dks voxr djkrs gq, djnkrk QeZ }kjk lc Bsdsnkjksa dks Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k :i;k 5]45]000@& dks djnkrk QeZ dh vk; esa tksM+s tkus gsrq izLrkfor fd;k x;k ftl ij izkf/kd`r izfrfuf/k us viuh lgefr O;Dr dhA bl izdkj QeZ dh vk; esa :0 5]45]000@& tksM+s tkrs gSA From the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant made the payment to the sub-contractor to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and did not deduct TDS at sources. The appellant agreed for payment of amount of Rs. 5,45,000/- as income tax for the purpose of assessment after deductions. The appellant authority has considered all the facts in details and there is no question arise for determination in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. (S.K. Gangele) (S.K. Palo) J U D G E J U D G E dcs/- "