M/S.v.m.b. Leathers v. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward Xii(4),Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.150 of 2011 M/s.V.M.B. Leathers,No.40/2,Wuthuthoattan Street,Periamet, Chennai - 600 003.PAN: ... Appellant/Appellant -vs- The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward XII(4),Chennai.... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunalBench'C',Chennai,dated22.10.2010inITA.No.918/MDS/2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. Againstorder of the Commissioner of Incoem Tax (Appeals) IV, Chennai,dated 16.04.2010 made in Appeal No.CIT (A)-IV/CHE/296/09-10against order of the Incoem Tax Officer, Business Ward -XII(4)Chennai dated 18/12/2009 made in PAN/GIR No. for theAssessment year of 2007-08. For Appellant:Mr.A.S.SriramanFor Respondent:Mrs.R.HemalathaStanding Counsel This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 260A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'C', Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "theTribunal") dated 22.10.2010 in ITA.No.918/MDS/2010 for theassessment year 2007-08.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The above appeal was admitted on 10.10.2011 on thefollowing substantial question of law:-“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law insustaining the disallowance of the tanning chargeson the application of Section 194C r/w. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in computation of taxable totalincome?" 3.Heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for theappellant and M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondent/revenue. 4.The short issue is whether the Assessing Officer was rightin disallowing the tanning charges by applying Section 194C r/w.Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act while computing the total taxableturnover. Admittedly, the assessee showed the headed figure ofRs.40,40,679/- as tanning charges. The Assessing Officer heldthat the nature of job entrusted to the contractor necessarilyrequires the use of material and labour, for which, payment hasbeen made and it is the duty of the assessee to deduct TDS onany payment made to the contractor for carrying out any workincluding supply of labour. Further, the Assessing Officer heldthat in support of his claims there was no written agreementwith the contractor for the work entrusted. Further, it washeld that that nature of work done by the assessee is tanningwork and the payment has been made for the same and therefore,the question of contract of sale does not arise. The assesseefiled an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, before which, itproduced certain breakup details which was rightly disbelievedas an after thought and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved bythe same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. TheTribunal once again considered the factual matrix and held thatthe assessee having produced consolidated bills before theAssessing Officer rightly disbelieved the separate bills by theassessee before the CITA. 5.In the light of the above, we find that there is nospecific question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True copy// cse https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C', Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Incoem Tax (Appeals) IV, Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XII (4), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.RaviKumar, Advocate SR.No.85202 T.C.(A) No.150 of 2011 AK(CO)GMY(07/01/2019)