- (1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. The present appeal has been filed under s. 260A of the I.T. Act against the order dt. 10th Dec, 2010 passed by the Tribunal in ITAT Nos. 4496 and 4497/Del/2010 relating to asst. yrs. 2009 -10 and 2010 -11.
(2.) THE background facts may be noted in brief. It appears that a survey was conducted by the I.T. Department on 16th Sept., 2009 at the place of the assessee -respondent which is a Government undertaking. In the said survey it was found that the tax deducted by the assessee -respondent is less. The case of the assessee -respondent was that the tax has been deducted on labour charges by excluding the materials used by the contractor. A show -cause notice was given by the ITO(TDS), Meerut. Being not satisfied with the reply, a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,21,21,201 was created. The said order has been set aside in appeal by the CIT(A), Meerut. The Department carried the matter before the Tribunal. In the memo of appeal, following substantial questions of law have been framed: 1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) had come to the conclusion that the TDS on payment made for repairing of transformer was deductible only with reference to labour charges by excluding the value of material used by the contractor for carrying out the repairing of the transformer by completely overlooking the fact that there was one consolidated contract for repairing of transformer and there were no two separate and district contracts for repair and supply of material? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in misinterpreting and in not taking into consideration the CBDT Circular No. , dt. 8th Aug., 1995, ((1995) 127 CTR (St) 13) in the correct perspective without assigning any reason whatsoever? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in wrongly applying the provisions of s. 194C substituted by the Finance Act (No. 2), 2009 w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2009 as these provisions are applicable for the work of manufacturing and supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer and therefore, it does not include a contract in the nature of repairing of transformer which is admittedly not a work in the nature of manufacturing and supplying a product?
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is perfect and justified. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that TDS was rightly deducted only with reference to the labour charges involved and there was no short deduction. It is found that the contract in question was divided into 4 components on supply of leg coil, transformer oil, various supply items and labour charges which negated the claim of the Department on the ground that no fee was charged by the contractors. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that s. 194C is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the assessee -respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh undertaking, we are not inclined to interfere in the present matter. The appeal is dismissed summarily.;