9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1981-82. The petitioner herein seeks determination of the following questions, which are stated to be arising out of the Tribunal's consolidated order dated June 24, 1988, in I.T.A. Nos. 643 to 651/Chandi of 1985 for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no consideration was paid and there was no contract and as such the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, could not come into play? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case was not intended to fall within the computation provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid orders, the assessee filed appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The second appeal of the assessee before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed vide impugned order dated June 24, 1988. The applicant being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, prayed to the Tribunal for referring the questions of law as reproduced above but the said application was rejected. Hence, the present application under section 256(2) of 1961 Act. Before we may proceed any further in the case, it will be appropriate to reproduce section 194C(2) of the 1961 Act, under which rule penalty has been imposed upon the assessee. The same reads thus: " Any person (being a contractor and not being an individual or a Hindu undivide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the paper book. Ess Kay Construction Company was not registered with MES authorities and did not enter into any contract. This concern was not a contractor within the meaning of section 194C(1) of the 1961 Act and, therefore, the question of default in sub-contract did not arise. A further finding of fact has been recorded that the assessee did not charge any commission from its alleged sub-contractors and as mentioned above, whatever tax was payable has since been paid by the main concern, i.e., the assessee, under section 194C(1) of the 1961 Act. Mr. N.L. Sharda, learned counsel appearing for the Department, however, vehemently contends that there was a contract between the assessee and its sister concerns and that being so, the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
