Itxa/1387/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii, Nasik v. Vijay Ramchandra Shirsat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1387 OF 2012 … The Commissioner of Income Tax-II...Appellantv/s.Vijay Ramchandra Shirsat...Respondent ...Respondent … Mr.Vimal Gupta, Sr.Advocate i/b Vipul Arun Bajpayee for the Appellant. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 31 OCTOBER 2014 P.C.: This Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench of Pune in two Appeals for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. By the common order dated 29 September 2011, the Tribunal has partly allowed the Appeals of the Assessee. 2.The only question and termed as substantial question of law is with regard to deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal in para 5.2 of the impugned order held that there was no obligation to deduct the tax, as there was no contract. Assuming there was one between the Assessee and one of the agencies engaged, that would not attract the provisions, because various agencies were engaged. However, the Assessee was solely responsible for executing the contracts. Control of work was in the hands of the Assessee. There was no agreement from which a sub-contractor could be itxa-1387-12.doc carved out. This, according to us, is a view taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore is a possible one. We do not think such a view can be termed as perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record raising substantial question of law enabling us to entertain this Appeal. 3.The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)