Tribunal allows appeal, directs deletion of additions related to Section 40(a)(ia) and contract labor expenses.

M/s PMS Construction Company Versus ACIT, Jhunjhunu.

M/s PMS Construction Company Versus ACIT, Jhunjhunu. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Addition on Contravention of Section 40(a)(ia) for Payment to Contract Labour Expenses
2. Addition of 3% of Contract Expenses on Estimation Basis

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition on Contravention of Section 40(a)(ia) for Payment to Contract Labour Expenses

The appeal was against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of labor charges and cash payments made by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the wage payments were not made to contracted labor as per Section 194C and thus, Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted. The assessee also cited judgments to support their case. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide whether the tax was deductible and if Section 40(a)(ia) was applicable. Hence, the issue was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Addition of 3% of Contract Expenses on Estimation Basis

The Assessing Officer disallowed 3% of the total contract expenses without rejecting the books of accounts, citing disproportionate expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on cash payments with doubtful genuineness. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made on an adhoc basis without specifying the unverified expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 8,26,630. Thus, the appeal on this ground was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition related to the contravention of Section 40(a)(ia) and the estimation-based addition of 3% of contract expenses. The judgment was pronounced on October 26, 2017, by the ITAT Jaipur.