TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming disallowance of Rs. 48,64,187/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from construction business. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee made the payment of Rs. 48,64,187/- for labour charges without deduction of tax at source u/s 194C. Therefore, he disallowed the payment u/s 40(a)(ia). The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as under:- "Assessee's submissions are duly considered. During the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201 (1A) r.w.s. 194C of the Act before the ITO(TDS), the assessee had accepted that the work is exclusively carried out by giving contract to labourers. It is also accepted before the ITO (TDS) that the payment is made to the single person to execute a particular work in a particular period. The person providing the labourers obtains income for services from the group of labourers. In all the copies of the bills submitted by the assessee before the ITO (TDS) are progressively increasing mentioning specific projects for the specific period and all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; (Disallowance Rs. 48,64,187/-) " 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the addition; hence, this appeal by the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel that the payment was made to 14 labour supervisors who brought the labourers. That the payment to the labour supervisors was a collective payment in respect of all the labourers brought by him. There was no contract between the assessee and the labour supervisors and therefore, se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to - (i) one per cent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to an individual or a Hindu undivided family; (ii) two per cent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to a person other than an individual or a Hindu undivided family, of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein. (2) Where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. (3) Where any sum is paid or credited for carrying out any work mentioned in sub-clause (e) of clause (iv) of the Explanation, tax shall be deducted at source- (i) on the invoice value excluding the value of material, if such value is mentioned separately in the invoice; or (ii) on the whole of the invoice value, if the value of materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; ABSTRACT Project - M.P. Resort Date 30/05/2008 Sub Contractor- Avinash Soni &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....By Sub-Contractor Site Incharge Note :- Security Deposit. Advance & Income Tax will be deducted at H.O. 9. From the above, it is evident that in the bill/voucher, Avinash Soni to whom the payment is made is designated as "sub-contractor". In the description of work, it is clearly mentioned as "un-skilled/skilled labour supply". The labour supplier charged Rs. 100/- per MD (Man Days) in respect of un-skilled labour supplied by him and Rs. 200/- per MD in respect of skilled labour supplied by him. There is mention of previous bills, total bill up to the present bill, total am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal before us. In the appeal before us, the 14 persons supplied man- power to the assessee and they issued the bill for supply of skilled/unskilled man-power for which payment is made to them. Thus, the payments to the 14 persons were made in the capacity of labour contractor and not for and on behalf of other labourers. Similarly, the facts in the case of Tulsi Ram Modi (supra), before the Jaipur Tribunal, were different. In the aforesaid case, the assessee was engaged in the business of sales of aluminium sections/profiles/profiles glass sheets, wooden/gypsum boards, etc. For the purpose of installation and fittings of such material at customers' premises, casual labourers were employed. The Assessing Officer of the opinion that the assessee became the contractor for installation and fittings of such material and the casual workers became sub-contractors and therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct the tax at source. In our opinion, the facts of the present case are altogether different than the facts of the Jaipur Bench in the case of Tulsi Ram Modi (supra). Similarly, the facts in the case of Laxmi Protein Products P. Ltd (supra) before the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y confirming the order of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Anand holding that Appellant has failed to deduct tax of Rs. 59,630/- u/s 201(1) of the I T Act, 1961 and levying interest of Rs. 12,522/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereon. AY 2011-12 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the order of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Anand holding that Appellant has failed to deduct tax of Rs. 4,22,891/- u/s 201(1) of the I T Act, 1961 and levying interest of Rs. 38,060/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereon. 12. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel as well as ld. Departmental Representative that the facts are similar to the facts in ITA No.2878/Ahd/2012. The assessee made the payments to few persons which the assessee claimed as labour supervisors, but as per Revenue they were not the supervisors but the contractors who supplied the labourers to the assessee and therefore, the TDS ought to have been deducted. Since the assessee has failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee was treated to be in default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). The order of the Assessing Officer ....