9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Government civil contracts mainly for Railways. During the year, assessee seems to have undertaken circulating area earth works and retaining wall works between Karimnagar and Jagatityal, on the proposed new broad gauge line connecting Peddapalli and Nizamabad via Karimnagar; constructed a major bridge No.607 across Korutla-Peda Vagu; and also a rail over bridge near Ongole Railway Station. As part of contract works, assessee seems to have paid various amounts towards cement, metal, labour charges, vehicle charges, etc. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings, disallowed amounts noticing that they are in violation of S.40A(3). The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.44,99,365 under S.40A(3) and an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portance and the case-law on various principles, prima-facie he submitted that the Assessing Officer did not examine many of the contentions raised. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and perusing the details on record, we are of the opinion that the issue is to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The submissions of the assessee on factual aspects, as taken from the written arguments filed before us, are that - "....... (i) The assessee made payments to the partner who is an agent of the firm and who is required to make payments at site in cash to the labor, use of agricultural implements like tractor, purchase of metal and cement th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given enough opportunity in the course of assessment proceedings. 10. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) in para 6.6 considered the disallowance under S.37(1) as if it is a disallowance under S.40A(3). Even though the assessee requested for giving an opportunity to submit the bills, the same was also not accepted. Further, as seen from the assessment order at page 7, the vouchers pertaining to payment to Vaseem is for Roller Rent from 16.2.2007 to 17.3.2008. Even though this indicates that the payment is for more than one year, and partly covers the previous year, the Assessing Officer seems to have not noticed this and disallowed the entire amount under S.40A(3). If the payments are made on 'labour' account and not on 'vehicle account', and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
