2013 (11) TMI 373 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act TDS u/s 194C - Assessee contended that they only hired the vehicles; but the drivers, fuel etc. were paid by the assessee and thus Section 194C(2) was not applicable Held that - Neither the assessing officer nor Commissioner (Appeals) had orally examined or asked for written replies/computation from the car owners/taxi owners to verify and ascertain whether they had provided drivers and paid for fuel. The assessing officer had proceeded and accepted that drivers/fuel was directly provided/paid for by the respondent - contended by the assessee and voluminous documents produced to establish that the respondent-assessee had paid for fuel and salary of the drivers Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Section 40(a)(ia) for disallowance of expenditure.
2. Interpretation of Section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessment of whether the expenditure incurred was genuine.
4. Examination of agreements between the respondent and third parties regarding payment for drivers and fuel.
5. Discrepancies in findings between the assessing officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, a sole proprietor providing vehicles with drivers to third parties, filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessing officer invoked Section 40(a)(ia) to disallow an expenditure of Rs.1,42,95,000/- for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194 C (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer disregarded the assessee's argument that only vehicles were hired, while drivers and fuel were paid separately, emphasizing substance over form.

2. The assessing officer's interpretation of Section 194 C(2) was challenged as the section applies when payment is made for carrying out work with labor, where labor is an essential component. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's stance that only vehicles were hired, with drivers and fuel expenses being handled separately. The section is applicable only when specific conditions are met, and the expenditure in question was genuine.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced agreements between the respondent and third parties to support the claim that drivers and fuel were provided by the taxi owners, not the assessee. However, discrepancies arose regarding additional charges mentioned in the agreements, leading to a rejection of this contention. The assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals) failed to verify directly with the car owners regarding the provision of drivers and fuel, unlike the Tribunal, which examined the documents provided by the assessee.

4. The Tribunal's detailed examination of the documents led to the dismissal of the appeal, as it was established that the respondent had paid for fuel and driver salaries, contradicting the assessing officer's assumptions. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed promptly.