Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision for assessee, dismissing Revenue's appeal. No distinguishing features found.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features in the case compared to earlier years and noted the absence of contrary binding decisions or evidence. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on November 15, 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of work receipts of Rs. 23,85,52,584/- shared by the Joint Venture members, u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 3, Pune, dated 12.11.2015, for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is a Joint Venture (JV) formed for the purpose of acquiring project work, specifically the “Jihe Kathapur Lift Irrigation Scheme.” The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring nil taxable income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 23,85,52,580/-. The AO disallowed the amount under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non-deduction of TDS. The Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue in favor of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

2. AO's Findings:
During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee received contract receipts of Rs. 23,85,52,584/-, which were distributed among the JV members. The AO considered this distribution as a sub-contract and held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Since no tax was deducted, the AO applied the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the amount.

3. Ld.CIT(A)'s Decision:
The Ld.CIT(A) observed that there was no contractor-contractee relationship between the JV and its members. The income was to be taxed in the hands of the members, not the JV. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the ITAT Pune Bench's decision in similar cases and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh's judgment in CIT Vs Bhooratnam & Company, which emphasized that the revenue cannot retain TDS without credit being available to anybody.

4. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal reviewed the rival submissions and material on record. It noted that an identical issue arose in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, where the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal in the case of Shraddha & Mahalaxmi Joint Venture and Swapnali RDS Joint Venture held that the JV was not liable to deduct TDS as the distribution of work was not equivalent to a sub-contract. The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no distinguishing features in the present case compared to earlier years. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary binding decision or evidence that the earlier orders were set aside or stayed by the High Court. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

6. Final Order:
The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced on the 15th day of November, 2017.

---