JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Rajive Bhalla J.-The Revenue is before us challenging order dated August 28, 2012, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), on following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing Assessing Officer to apply net profit rate of 6 per cent. against 12 per cent. whereas hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court itself in different set of facts had applied net profit rate of 10 per cent.? (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in accepting interpretation adopted by Vishakhapatnam Special Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Visakhapatnam) [SB]; [2012] 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Visakhapatnam) that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is to be made only in respect of payments which are outstanding at end of financial year and payment of which is without deduction of tax (after end of financial year)? (iii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting addition of Rs. 8,04,948, though same had been shown by assessee under sub- head'work-in-progress' and has not been reflected in trading account?" Before dealing with submissions made by counsel for Revenue, it would be appropriate to delimit facts in brief. assessee is civil contractor and during assessment year 2008-09, filed return of income. return was selected for scrutiny and, vide order dated November 10, 2010, Assessing Officer, while rejecting account books, assessed income by applying net profit rate of 12 per cent. on gross receipts. Assessing Officer also made additions under section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for failure to deduct tax at source regarding payment to sub-contractors. Assessing Officer also made addition on account of work-in-progress. Aggrieved by this order, assessee filed appeal. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)) vide order dated March 18, 2011, deleted net profit rate of 12 per cent. by holding that no reason has been assigned for rejecting account books, confirmed additions on account of non-deduction of tax at source and held that as deletion on account of work-in-progress is already reflected in accounts, addition has been rendered infructuous. Both Revenue as well as assessee filed separate appeals. Tribunal by way of impugned order, affirmed order passed by Assessing Officer rejecting account books but reduced net profit rate to 6 per cent. As regards additions made on account of deduction of tax at source, Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to examine genuineness of payments. As regards work-in-progress, Tribunal affirmed order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal has not assigned any reason for applying net profit rate of 6 per cent. particularly when Assessing Officer has after due consideration of facts given reasons for applying net profit rate of 12 per cent. As regards addition on account of failure to deduct tax at source, it is contended that as section 40(a)(ia) of Act is mandatory and does not admit to any exception, opinion recorded by Tribunal to contrary is against statute and must, therefore, be set aside. As regards question No. 3, it is submitted that neither Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor Tribunal have assigned any reason for deleting addition made on account of work-inprogress. We have heard counsel for appellant, perused impugned order as well as orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Assessing Officer and are not inclined to entertain appeal much less to hold that any substantial question of law arises for adjudication. Tribunal has applied net profit rate of 6 per cent. as it was in consonance with past history of assessee. At time of initial hearing, we had called upon counsel for appellant-Revenue to apprise court about net profit rate applied to assessee in years previous and subsequent to assessment year in dispute. Counsel for appellant fairly concedes, on instructions that in preceding as well as following year net profit rate of 6.75 per cent. and 5 per cent., respectively, was applied by Assessing Officer and has also placed on record order for assessment year 2009-10 where net profit rate of 5 per cent. has been applied to assessee. We, therefore, find no error in discretion exercised by Tribunal in applying net profit rate of 6 per cent. As regards question relating to deduction of tax at source, suffice it to state that Tribunal has merely restored matter to Assessing Officer by asking him to verify transactions and if found to be correct, pass orders accordingly by holding as follows: "8. On perusal of record we find that issue in this appeal is in relation to disallowance made out of payments of labour charges paid for non-deduction of tax at source under provisions of section 194C of Act. said disallowance was made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of Act. Special Bench of Visakhapatnam reported in Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Visakhapatnam) [SB]; [2012] 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Visakhapatnam) had laid down principle that where amounts have been paid during year under consideration itself and nothing is payable at close of year, no disallowance was warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of Act for non-deduction of tax at source out of such amount paid during year. Following abovesaid parity of reasoning, we direct Assessing Officer to verify stand of assessee and in case said amounts have been paid by assessee during year under consideration, no disallowance is warranted out of said payments in line with provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of Act. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to assessee by Assessing Officer for adjudicating issue. ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." for statistical purposes." We find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with above finding as Tribunal has left it on Assessing Officer to determine whether payments were made by assessee during year under consideration. third point need not detain us for long as perusal of order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal reveals that Rs. 8,04,948 added on account of work-in-progress, had already been taken into account in total costs of works and, therefore, addition made by Assessing Officer was not warranted. Tribunal has recorded that representative from Department was unable to controvert findings recorded by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect thereof. We are rather mystified as to why question No. 3 has been framed as question of law. Consequently, we answer questions of law against Revenue and dispose of appeal accordingly. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajinder Parshad Jain