9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 5 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - Disallowance of payments of stevedoring expenses to Calcutta Dock Labour Board - The contention of the assessee, however, is that the provisions of Section 194 C are not applicable on the facts of this case, and, therefore, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made, and it is this contention which has been accepted by the CIT(A), on the ground that the Dock Labour Board is operating as an agent of stevedores, who are actual employers and that there is no contractual relationship between the appellant and Calcutta Dock labour Board - Held that there is no dispute that the assessee has paid the amounts for supply of labour for carrying out work - CDLB is an agent of the stevedores like the assessee in the sense that the labour is recruited by the assessee through CDLB, but then this fact does not affect the nature of payment by the assessee to the CDLB which is admittedly in the nature of payment for supply of labour - There is no cause and effect relationship between workers assigned by the CDLB having employer workman relationship with the assessee, and the payments being made by the assessee to CDLB being not in the nature of payment for supply of labour - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to CIT(A)
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is a contractual relationship between the assessee and the Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB). 2. Whether Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to payments made to the CDLB. 3. Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on payments to CDLB is justified. Detailed Analysis: Contractual Relationship Between Assessee and CDLB The primary issue is whether there exists a contractual relationship between the assessee and the CDLB. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the CDLB is a non-government body and thus, payments made to it require tax deduction at source (TDS). The AO disallowed the payments made to CDLB under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, asserting that the CDLB's primary function is to provide labor to stevedores, which necessitates TDS under Section 194C. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the assessee's contention that there is no contractual relationship between the assessee and the CDLB. The CIT(A) referenced judgments from the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court, which stated that the CDLB operates as an agent for the stevedores, who are the actual employers of the laborers. This led to the conclusion that Section 194C does not apply, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. Applicability of Section 194C The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 194C, which mandates TDS on payments made to contractors for carrying out any work, including the supply of labor. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address how there is no contractual relationship between the assessee and CDLB. The Tribunal emphasized that a contract need not be in writing; even an oral contract suffices to invoke Section 194C. Payments made to CDLB for the supply of labor fall under the purview of Section 194C(1), even if the labor is considered to be employed by the assessee for all practical purposes. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that CDLB is an agent of the stevedores does not negate the nature of the payments made by the assessee to CDLB for the supply of labor. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194C are applicable to these payments. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with the assessee's submissions regarding why the supply of labor by CDLB should not be treated as being in pursuance of a contract and why CDLB should not be considered a contractor. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s reasoning and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to issue a speaking order addressing all contentions raised by the assessee, in accordance with the law, and after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Conclusion The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s reasoning and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to address all contentions raised by the assessee comprehensively. The assessee is at liberty to raise any legal and factual pleas deemed appropriate, and the CIT(A) is to deal with these as directed.
|
