TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee and since the issue is covered, the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned D.R. on merit. 3. The facts related to this case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer on the basis of information, which were furnished by the assessee, noticed that certain payments for construction work were made by the assessee on which TDS had not been deducted. The submissions of the assessee were that the payments were made to the contractors by Rajashthan Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Chittorgarh, therefore, no TDS has been deducted u/s 194C of the Act. It was also stated that certain payments under the Kishan Kalyan Yojna were made to the farmers who m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. As per instruction of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, the appellant made contribution as per certain fixed formula for the above work to the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Board who undertook the job of construction of road, missing link road and repairs and maintenance and entered into contract with concerned contractor and the said Executive Engineer or said Body is liable to deduct tax, if any. No construction work was directly or indirectly undertaking by the KUMS nor they entered into for any contract with the contractor for the construction work. The KUMS, Udaipur as per the direction of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board only made contribution to the main body as per fixed formula. In the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions of the appellant as well as the findings of the Assessing Officer. It is seen that the appellant has made payments to Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, the Body which has executed the construction work through its Executive Engineer or PWD. The said agencies entered into contract with the contractor for construction for providing facilities to the public by the KUMS i.e. appellant. It is noted that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur "B" Bench, in the case of KUMS, Sikar Vs. ITO in ITA No. 55/JP/2011 in the order dated 5.8.2011 as under after considering the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. KUMS, Gajsinghpur & Ors. 227 CTR (Raj.) 79. "2.2 it has been held that ....