MALAY BISHOI,DABUGAON vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is an employee of Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi. It was submission that the assessee had undertaken the supervisory work on the behalf of the said Surendra Kumar Panigrahi. Consequently the assessee had received payments to an extent of Rs.2,67,09,890/-.It was submission that out of the said Rs.2,67,09,870/- Rs.2,50,500/- was the salary received by the assessee. The balance were expenses reimbursed by Shri Surnedra Kumar Panigrahi on account of the materials and wages. It was the submission that Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi was having turnover of Rs.13,17,76,617/- and in response to 2 notice u/s.133(6) of the Act and Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi has confirmed that the assessee was his employee and that salary was being paid to him at the rate of Rs.18,500/- per month. He had also confirmed that the payments had been made to the assessee towards reimbursement of the expenses incurred on behalf of Shri Surendra Panigrahi. In respect of the contract that was being at Dabugaon, Nabarangpur. It was the submission that the name of the work was also provided OR/22-AB-03. It was the submission that the AO did not accept the contention of the asseseee and did not consider the response of Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi to the notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act and treated the assessee as a sub contractor and made an addition @ 8% of the said of Rs.2,67,09,890/- as the income of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessment in the case of Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi has also been completed on 01/03/2022 wherein 30% of the said contract amount has been disallowed by holding that Shree Panigrahi had not deducted TDS u/s.194C of the Act on the payments made to the assessee. It was submission that the assessee was not a sub-contractor, the contract belonged to Shree Panigrahi. The contract was allotted to Shree Panigrahi and the assessee was only a supervisor and was receiving salary only. As the assessee was on-site supervisor, the payments have been routed through assessee’s bank account as transporting so much of cash was difficult. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the assessment and treated the entire 3 Rs.2,69,66,500, as the income from other sources by holding that that there was no service provided by the assessee to Surendra Ku. Panigrahi. It was submission that in response to 133(6) notice Shri Panigrahi has categorically given the all details. The bank transactions are also clearly available, the expenses have also been shown. It was the submission that the enhancement as made by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.