M/S Sai Builders C/O Jai Prakash Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
ITA/11/2014HC Madhya Pradesh30 September 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. GANGELE2 pages
For Petitioner: Mohan Babu Mangal
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that, based on the facts of the case, the appellant made payments to sub-contractors totaling Rs. 5,45,000/- without deducting TDS at source, and the appellant agreed to this amount being treated as income for assessment purposes. The Tribunal observed that the assessing authority had considered all facts in detail and concluded that there was no question arising for determination in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by M/s Sai Builders against an order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra. The dispute pertains to assessment year 2008-09. The assessing authority disallowed deductions of Rs. 5,45,000/-. The assessee had made payments to sub-contractors, and during scrutiny, it was found that payments were made to specific sub-contractors: Rs. 2,35,000/- to Shri Vishu Singh, Rs. 1,25,000/- to Shri Arjun Singh, and Rs. 1,85,000/- to Shri Shritar Ram Singh, totaling Rs. 5,45,000/-. These individual payments exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. The assessing authority noted that the assessee failed to deduct TDS as per Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proposed to add the disallowed amount to the assessee's income. The assessee agreed to this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had any question to decide in the appeal, given the assessee's agreement to the addition of Rs. 5,45,000/- to its income. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's representative, Shri M.B. Mangal, Advocate, was present. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments, but it notes their agreement to the addition of Rs. 5,45,000/- to their income. The appeal itself suggests a challenge to the order, implying a disagreement with the disallowance or the consequential addition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's representative, Shri Saurav Jain, Advocate, was present. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments, but it implies their stance was in line with the assessing authority's disallowance and addition, which the assessee subsequently agreed to.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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/-

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →