Held, that the assessee had withdrawn the amount from his bank account through his employees, i.e., supervisors, for disbursement to individual labourers and the supervisors gave an account of the money so received for payment to the labourers. Thus, the assessee was the principal and the supervisors acted as agent of the assessee. It is settled law that the authority of an agent may be express or implied. Submission of account by a supervisor acting as agent of the assessee, for the amount received and disbursed to individual labourers, left no manner of doubt that the supervisors who were employees of the assessee, acted as agents of the assessee for the purposes of disbursement of amount to labourers. The payment so made by the supervisors had not exceeded Rs. 20,000 to any individual labourers. There was no material or evidence on record to indicate or establish that the supervisors were sub-contractors. Under the circumstances the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the supervisors were sub-contractors was perverse and contrary to law. The order of the Tribunal to the extent it upheld the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act, 1961, could not be sustained and  set aside.(AY. 2006-07)