- (1.) This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra in in I.T.A. No. 228/AGR/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07.
(2.) The assessee has raised following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether, in view of the fact that the Assessment order and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal record a finding that it was the first year of the business of the appellant, disallowance by the Tribunal under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure of the appellant to comply with Section 194C is sustainable in law? (b) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the there was no material to show it was the first year of business or that the monetary limit in the preceding year had not been breached does not advert to the detailed reasons recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue, is perverse and liable to be set-aside? (c) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, having confirmed the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to compute income of the appellant @ 8% of the net receipts, ought to delete the addition of Rs. 2,74,88,625/- as it was the cost of material and labour supplied by the main contractor and on which no liability to deduct tax could arise on the appellant?"
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is proprietor of the business of sub-contractor for road construction. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has filed the return by showing total income of Rs. 3,13,995/- stating that he is working as sub-contractor for M/s. Gammon India Ltd. But the A.O. passed the impugned order ex-parte and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 29,88,132/- by applying the profit @ 8%. Further the A.O. made the disallowance pertaining to the rent and labour, rent of machinery under Section-40(a)(ia) by observing that no TDS has been deducted. The first appellate authority has partly allowed appeal and gave the substantial relief to the assessee. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the second appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by restoring the disallowance of Rs. 3,23,00,625/- made by the A.O. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal.;