9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the payments made by the assessee to its C&F agents were covered under sections 192 and 194J of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the assessee was correct in deducting tax at source under section 194C instead of section 194-I. 3. Whether the deletion of penalty under section 271C by the learned CIT(A) was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Sections 192 and 194J: The assessee contended that the payments to C&F agents were for handling goods and dispatching them to stockists, and thus, these payments were not for professional or technical services. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that payments like salary, remuneration, and service charges paid to agents were not in the nature of a works contract. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to bifurcate the payments and apply the relevant TDS provisions, including sections 192 and 194J. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on irrelevant material and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. 2. Deduction of Tax under Section 194C vs. Section 194-I: The assessee deducted tax at 2.2% under section 194C for payments made to C&F agents, arguing these were for services rendered and not for the use of land or building. The Assessing Officer, relying on CBDT Circular No. 718, held that warehousing charges were subject to tax under section 194-I at 22%. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the agreements included combined payments for salary, remuneration, rent, and handling charges, thus requiring bifurcation. The Tribunal, however, concluded that section 194-I applies only to rent from immovable property and not to the payments made to C&F agents, which were not for the use of land or building. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision based on relevant material. 3. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271C: The assessee argued that it had a bona fide belief that the payments to C&F agents were covered under section 194C. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, noting that the assessee had already deducted tax under section 194-I for rent payments to landlords and under section 194C for payments to C&F agents. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee's belief was bona fide and that the view taken was a possible one. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that a different view by the Assessing Officer did not make the penalty under section 271C leviable. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the departmental appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the applicability of sections 192, 194-I, and 194J, while upholding the deletion of penalty under section 271C.
|
