PRITHISH DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that a portion of the disallowed amount, Rs. 4,74,735/-, represented the cost of material and not labour charges. Therefore, this portion should not have been disallowed for non-deduction of TDS on labour payments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a government contractor, paid Rs. 50,97,955/- as labour charges to six contractors without deducting TDS. The AO disallowed the entire amount under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of labour charges under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified when a part of the amount represented material cost.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]
Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 15.03.2016 for AY 2010-11.
At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground no. 3A which the assessee has preferred as additional ground vide letter no. 19.12.2017 and he submitted that he is pressing only this ground for adjudication and he is not pressing original ground nos. 1 to 3 filed along with the appeal, therefore, ground nos. 1 to 3 originally raised grounds of appeal stand dismissed.
The additional ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is as under:
3A. That on the fact and circumstances of the case the additional of 4,74,742 being labour charges out of total addition of Rs.50,97,955 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a government contractor and sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Das Enterprise and Shri Das under the banner M/s. Das Enterprise. During scrutiny assessment, the AO found that the assessee has made payment of Rs.50,97,955/- as labour charges to six contractors and since tax has not been deducted at source he applied sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 2 Prithish Das., AY- 2010-11 “Act”) and disallowed the said sum of Rs. 50,97,955/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO and dismissed the ground of appeal of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred this ground of appeal before us.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee is a govt. contractor who has realized an amount of Rs.1,74,79,931/- from the contract work with the Govt. The assessee in its P&L Account has clearly shown the labour charges disbursed by him at Rs.46,23,213/- whereas the AO has disallowed Rs.50,97,955/-. We note that Rs.46,23,213/- which was given on account of labour charges to six contractors. The details of the amount debited in the P&L Account actually disallowed by the AO is given in a chart at page 2 of the Ld. CIT(A), which is as under:
Sl. Name of the contractor Labour charge bill raised as Amount of addition No. per books 1. M/s. Bikas Das Rs.5,85,490/- Rs.5,85,490/- 2. M/s. Jiten Das & Co Rs.12,80,030/- Rs.13,76,825/- 3. M/s. Ratis Das Rs.7,41,756/- Rs.8,65,965/- 4. Sanjay Halder Rs.7,03,177/- Rs.9,56,915/- 5. Khagen Mondal Rs.5,87,770/- Rs.5,87,770/- 6. M/s. Biswajit Roy Rs.7,24,990/- Rs.7,24,990/- Total Rs.46,23,213/- Rs.50,97,955/-
From a perusal of the aforesaid chart it is clear that the labour charges given by the assessee to the aforesaid contractors are to the tune of Rs.46,23,213/-. The amount disbursed for purchase of material to the aforesaid contractors three in numbers is as given below:
(i) M/s. Jiten Das & Co. …… Rs. 96,795/- (ii) M/s. Ratis Das …… Rs.1,24,202/- (iii) Sanjay Halder …… Rs.2,53,738/- which works out to Rs.4,74,735/-. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we note that the AO erred in disallowing Rs.50,97,955/- which includes Rs.4,74,735/- which is the cost of the material. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that Rs.4,74,735/- was erroneously added by the AO for disallowing the same as labour payment to contractors for
In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated :28th March, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Shri Prithish Das, Prop. Das Enterprise, Shop No. 8, Nabanir Apartment, Mahisgote, Dhalipara, Rajarhat, Kol-700102. . Respondent – ITO, Ward-33(3), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.
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 →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026