TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A), we find that she has not made any recording under Rule 46(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. In view of the foregoing, there is lack of clarity about facts. As submissions made before us on assessee s behalf by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are factual in nature; and require detailed factual verification. As we do not have the benefit of such detailed factual verification in the orders passed by either the AO or the Ld. CIT(A); we are inclined to remand the matter to AO for detailed verification of facts of the case; under the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us. - ITA No. 1414/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2021 - SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being liable under section 194C of the Act to deduct tax, could not be subjected to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) on facts and in law in not appreciating that the contractee, M/s Meat Products of India Limited, a public sector undertaking, had confirmed having paid directly to the sub-contractors. 4. That on the facts and in the cirucmstnaces of the case, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there was nothing on record that could justify disallowance of ₹ 1,50,278 to job workers and that the assessing officer had brought nothing on record to suggest that any tax was deductible (and not deducted) from the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct Expenses which is as under : Cartage Paid ₹ 4,290/- Jobwork Paid ₹ 1,50,278/- Labour charges Paid ₹ 86,560/- Site Expenses ₹ 15,26,866/- Sub-contractors ₹ 48,38,330/- Total 66,06,324/- It was observed that the assessee company had not deducted tax on the payment of job-work and payment to sub-contractor thereby attracting the provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia). According to this section, any interest, commission or brokerage, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effluent Treatment Plant in Kerala. The Appellant engaged two local sub-contractors M/s. Lee Builders and M/s. Power on Engineers for the execution of the contracts. The appellant claimed an amount of ₹ 66,06,324/- as other projects expenses. The appellant stated that M/s. Meat Product of India Ltd. made payment directly to the sub-contractors. M/s. Lee Builders and M/s. Power on Engineers of ₹ 25,40,000/- and deducted TDS. Further the appellant stated that he made purchases of contract material for ₹ 22,98,330/-. The appellant is stating that the work was given to sub-contractors and he is showing ₹ 48,38,330/- as payment made to sub-contractors. The appellant had also shown ₹ 1,50,278/- as, other projects exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that aforesaid disallowances totaling ₹ 49,88,608/- be deleted. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative ( Ld. Sr. DR , for short) relied on the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and AO. (E) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. We find from the perusal of the assessment order of the AO that the submissions made before us have not been mentioned in the assessment order passed by AO. It is the assessee s case, vide letter dated 14.07.2014 addressed to Ld. CIT(A) that the AO did not make any inquiry into the break-up of expenses and unknown to the assessee, the assessee s authorized representative did not volunteer further information. Also, though these submissions have been mentioned in the impugned order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
