Assessee entered into agreements with owners of land for construction of complex on said land .  Assessing Officer held that  provision of S.  40(a)(ia) would  apply  hence disallowed the expenditure . CIT( A) and Tribunal held that provision  of S.40(a)(ia  is not applicable . On appeal the Court held that the assessee was to be allotted some area in said complex . Assessee was given full liberty to thereafter sell, transfer and convey area in favour of third party . Assessee had assigned its rights in favour of one Prabhu Construction,  Since neither assessee nor  Prabhu Construction   could be styled as contractors, it was obvious that provisions of section 194C were not attracted in instant case. Since provisions of section 194C were not applicable, consequent provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would also not apply .  Court held that  Section 194-C of the IT Act refers to any person responsible for paying ‘any sum’ to any resident referred to as contractor in the said section for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract. The expression sum in the context, would mean sum of cash money as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Sri Rama Verma v. CIT1991 Supp (1) SCC 209, though in the context of the provisions of Section 80G of the IT Act as then stood. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the language of the provision is plain and clear, the Courts cannot enlarge the scope of the provision by adopting an interpretative process. No disallowance can be made for failure to deduct tax at source  . No substantial question of law .