SHREE LTC AGRO SALES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1116/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of labour charges as the assessee did not furnish any details to controvert the lower authorities' orders. The assessee was also absent and not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid labour charges of ₹21,16,127/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee failed to provide details to the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of labour charges is justified for failure to deduct tax at source, especially when the assessee fails to provide supporting details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh
Hearing: 25.10.2016Pronounced: 25.10.2016

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-13, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ` 21,16,127/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we noticed from the record that the assessee is not claiming notices sent by the Registry. Accordingly we notice that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has paid labour charges of ` 21,16,127/- and the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the details of tax deducted at source from the above said payment as per provisions of the Act. The assessee

2 Percept Finserve P. Ltd. did not furnish the details and hence the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the above said amount u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. Before the learned CIT(A) also assessee did not furnish any details and hence he confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Before us also the assessee did not furnish any details to controvert the order of the learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 25.10.2016

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →