HIM HYDRO JOINT VENTURE,PALAMPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding labour food and welfare expenses, restricting the addition to Rs. 1 Lac. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the payee had confirmed receipt and the payments were for laborers directly employed, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a civil contractor, appealed against the disallowance of labour food and welfare expenses and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on labour charges. The assessee argued that the expenses were incurred through laborers who made direct purchases and were reimbursed, and that the payments for labour charges were made to a contractor who then paid the laborers.
What were the issues?
Whether the labour food and welfare expenses were genuine and whether the disallowance of labour charges under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was justified when the payments were made to a contractor who disbursed them to the laborers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2016- 17 and 2017-18 have common grounds. First, we take up appeal for AY 2016-17 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 20-12-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25-12-2018.
The grievance of the assessee is two-fold i.e., (i) Confirmation of Labour Food and Welfare expenses for Rs.10.67 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Rs.20.86 Lacs for non-deduction of TDS on certain payments. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the same are disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged as a civil contractor. The assessee was subjected to survey on 08-03-2017 which led to impugned assessment on the assessee.
Disallowance of Labour Food & Welfare Expenses. 3.1 The assessee debited expenses of Rs.13.17 Lacs under this head. The supporting bills were stated to be issued by various shopkeepers. Upon verification from shopkeepers, the claim could be verified partially and accordingly, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.10.67 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.2 From assessee’s submissions, it emerges that the assessee has not made direct purchases from the vendors but the purchases are made by the laborers as hired by the assessee to carry out projects at remote sites. The same would explain denial by the vendors that they have sold the goods to the assessee company. In fact, Shri Keshav Ram (Shopkeeper), in reply to Q. No.7, has admitted that the laborers of the company used to purchase ration from him and the payments were made by themselves. The laborers, in turn, have claimed the same from the assessee-company. Considering the same, we would hold that there is substantial force in the argument of Ld. AR that the expenditure could not be held to be bogus expenditure in its entirety. Nevertheless, to plug any possible leakage of revenue, we deem it fit to restrict impugned addition to lump-sum amount of Rs.1 Lacs and delete the remaining addition as made by Ld. AO. The corresponding grounds stand partly allowed.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 4.1 The assessee paid labor charges to M/s Sharma Construction, Chamba for Rs.69.53 Lacs without deduction of TDS. The assessee stated that labor payments were made through one of the persons. The assessee furnished ledger copy and stated the payments were made through cheques. The payee is also stated to have received these amounts from the assessee. However, holding the payee as sub- contractor, Ld. AO disallowed 30% of these payments u/s 40(a)(ia). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.2 It is admitted fact by Ld. AO that the payee has confirmed receipt of impugned amount from the assessee. During appeal proceedings, the assessee also submitted that a site-work was being carried out at very tough terrains and to facilitate labor payments, the assessee paid the amount to M/s Sharma Contractor who, in turn, use to make payments to laborers on behalf of the assessee. It was also demonstrated with documents that the aforesaid amount was reflected in the books of the payee and the same was in the nature of imprest payment only. A certificate from payee to that effect was also furnished. The assessee also furnished attendance cards and labor wages register for this particular site. These laborers were directly employed by the assessee. On these facts, it could very well be said that the claim of the assessee was backed up by sufficient documentary evidences and it could not be said that the payee acted as sub- contractor for the assessee. On these facts, the impugned disallowance is not sustainable on facts. By deleting the same, we allow the corresponding grounds as raised by the assessee. The appeal stand partly allowed. Assessment Year 2017-18 5. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of labor food and welfare expenses for Rs.1.47 Lacs as paid by the assessee under similar circumstances to shopkeeper Shri Kheti Ram. We find that the purchases from this vendor were accepted by Ld. AO in AY 2016-17 and therefore, there is no reason to sustain the same in this year. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion 6. stand party allowed whereas ITA No.156/Chandi/24 stand allowed. Orders pronounced on 24-03-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24-03-2025 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026