Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20, regarding the assessee's non-deduction of TDS on labour payments. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions, accepting that labour charges were paid directly to labourers, with no sub-contractors involved, and payments did not exceed the TDS limit.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the CIT(A) had followed a precedent of a Coordinate Bench and the Revenue could not disprove the factual findings. It was affirmed that since payments were directly to laborers and within specified limits, no TDS liability arose, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under Section 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act on labour payments when no sub-contractors were involved and payments were made directly to labourers below the specified limit.
Sections Cited
Section 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri B.K. Ishwar, A.R. Department represented by Adjournment Application Filed Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna all dated 18/03/2024 for the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2019-20 respectively. As all the issues in all these appeals relate to the common issues, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order.
Shri B.K. Ishwar, ld. AR is represented on behalf of the assessee. The ld. CIT- DR has sought adjournment mentioning as follows: "As per order of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (B&J), Patna dated 26/09/2025, I have been directed to perform duty as CIT(DR) from 06.10.2025 to 10.10,2025 on rotational basis. In the following cases appeal orders have been passed by this office. In some cases, appeals of the same assessee's are pending with the undersigned for other assessment years. Hence, these cases cannot be argued by the undersigned. A short adjournment of 10 days may please be granted so that another CIT(DR) may attend to these cases." to 229/Ran/2024 ACIT Vs. Spice Projects and Infrastructure P Ltd.
The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected.
It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-DR for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT-DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT-DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi-judicial to 229/Ran/2024 ACIT Vs. Spice Projects and Infrastructure P Ltd. forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT- Departmental Representative was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. The matters are disposed off on merits on the basis of records and documents available before the Tribunal.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the main issue in the revenue’s appeal is against the order passed under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined by the survey team. It is also an accepted fact that there was no sub-contractor involved in the contract of the assessee. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) considered the facts and had following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Awadhesh Singh Construction Private Limited in and 281/Ran/2019 order dated 13/09/2020 had deleted the addition. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) having followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and no evidence having been produced by the revenue to show that the assessee had functioned with any sub-contractors, there was no requirement of deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that the labour payments