9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 656 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)- payments made on weekly basis to casual labourers payments made to the head of the family -payments made for hire for tractor and trolleys- Held that - Payments are composite payments made for multiple labourers and the payment for each labour did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- during the year thereby, the provisions of section 194C were not attracted in the absence of any evidence contrary to the confirmations of the recipients available on record. Assessee has claimed that the impugned expenditure is on account of hiring of tractors and trolleys on a day basis and does not involve any transportation contract. Merely on the fact that assessee has debited the expenditure under the head Transport and octroi it cannot be construed as a payment for a transportation contract. The nature of the expenditure cannot be deduced merely on the basis of the treatment accorded in the account books, but it has to be decided on the basis of substantive character of the transaction. Hence 194C is not applicable on above mentioned expenditures. Partly allowed in favor of aseessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,74,903/- on account of alleged low GP. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 33,34,903/- under section 40(a)(ia) for payments made to casual laborers. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 12,17,005/- under section 40(a)(ia) for payments made for hire of tractor and trolleys. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 3,74,903/- on account of alleged low GP: - The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not adjudicate the issue of the addition of Rs. 3,74,903/- on account of alleged low GP, despite it being specifically raised. - The Tribunal noted that the issue was indeed not considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudication in accordance with the law, allowing the assessee a due opportunity of being heard. - Consequently, the assessee succeeded on this ground for statistical purposes. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 33,34,903/- under section 40(a)(ia) for payments made to casual laborers: - The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 33,34,903/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C on payments exceeding Rs. 50,000/- to various laborers. - The assessee argued that the payments were made to casual laborers and did not constitute contractual payments requiring TDS under section 194C. - The assessee provided confirmations from workers that payments were made to them as casual daily wagers. - The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Dewan Chand, which stated that daily wages to casual employees do not attract section 194C. - The Tribunal found no justification for invoking section 40(a)(ia) as the payments were not contractual and did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per individual laborer. - The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 12,17,005/- under section 40(a)(ia) for payments made for hire of tractor and trolleys: - The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 12,17,005/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C, treating the payments as transportation charges. - The assessee contended that the payments were for hiring tractors and trolleys, not for transportation contracts, and thus section 194C was not applicable. - The Tribunal noted that the payments were made on a daily basis for hiring tractors and trolleys, not for transportation services. - The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. Poompuhar Shipping Corpn. Ltd., which distinguished between hiring transport vehicles and transportation contracts. - The Tribunal concluded that the payments did not fall under section 194C and even if considered under section 194-I, the provisions were applicable only after the period in dispute. - The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: - The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding the first issue for reconsideration and directing the deletion of disallowances for the second and third issues.
|
