9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.20/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming following substantial question of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,04,528/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of labour charges simply relying on the decision in assessee's own case in the assessment year 2001-02, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,97,572/- made on account of shortage in production even when the assessee has not been able to justify the shortage in finished product? iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer thus allowed labour charges to the assessee on the basis of the same as claimed by the other two leading manufacturers of mehandi by adopting the figure of 1.52% i.e. the higher of the two figures, as allowable expenses. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 13,04,528/- by taking the figure of 1.52% of the gross turnover of the assessee out of the total expenditure of Rs. 31,40,316/- claimed by it under these heads. On appeal, the CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02 deciding similar issue in favour of the assessee deleted the disallowance of Rs. 13,04,528/-. The revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following its o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sporters because they had given Form No.15-I. The Assessing Officer observed that the said Form was meant for sub contractor to the contractor and not by the contractor to the contractee as was the case here. Thus, the assessee had violated the provisions of section 194C of the Act and made disallowance in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 8,59,481/- inter alia holding that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source in view of Circular No.715 dated 8.8.1995. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that question No.(i) is covered by the decision of this Court dated 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question raised by the appellant does not raise a question of law at all. It is only a question of fact. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income having rejected the assessee's case that there was a shortage in production. The CIT(A) found, as a matter of fact, that the assessee had been maintaining the complete details/particulars of opening stock, purchase, consumption, production and sales, which were in fact verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The finding is that the addition was made purely on imagination and assumptions without bringing any documentary material on record. The finding is neither absurd nor perverse. 6. The second question is also answered against the appellant and in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or quantity, each GR will not be a separate contract and all GRs relating to that period or quantity will be aggregated for the purpose of the TDS. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that each GR is above Rs. 20,000/- and thus the assessee was required to deduct tax at source. This is a legal ground which can be taken up at any point of time in the appropriate proceedings. 3.2 The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any document to show that the assessee had a contract with any transporter and thus just because the payments exceeded Rs. 50,000/- there was no implicit reason to hold that the payments were made in pursuance to a contract. You are requested to delete the disallowance. 13. I have carefully considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such contract does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source from the said payments. It was further submitted that this is also borne out by the Board Circular No.715 dated 8.8.1995 wherein the following was stated:- Question 9: In the case of payments to transporters, can each GR be said to be separate contract, even though payments for several GRs are made under one bill? Answer: Normally, each GR can be said to be a separate contract, if the goods are transported at one time. But if the goods are transported continuously in pursuance of a contract for a specific period or quantity, each GR will not be a separate contract and all GRs relating to that period or quantity will be aggregated for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
