2014 (2) TMI 223 - AT - Income Tax

Violation of provision u/s 194J of the Act Professional fees paid Applicability of Section 194C for payment made to Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board for construction/ repairs/ maintenance of the market yards and missing link roads Leviability of Interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act - Held that - The decision in ITO(TDS), Udaipur vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh 2014 (1) TMI 935 - ITAT JODHPUR followed when the payee has paid due tax on these payments, there is no further liability of the payer to deduct tax at source there was no merit in the appeal of the revenue Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding payments made by the assessee to Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board.
- Application of section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payments made to local fund audit department of State Government and to advocates/chartered accountants for professional services.
- Leviability of interest under Section 201(1A) and requirement of charging interest u/s 201(1A) in specific scenarios.
- Compliance with Circular No.275/202/95-IT(B) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case regarding interest u/s 201(1A) and penalty u/s 271C.

Detailed Analysis:
- The issue involved in the first appeal (ITA No. 168/JU/2013) was the applicability of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payments made by the assessee to the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (RSAMB) for various works. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) observed discrepancies in tax deductions and issued a demand notice. The assessee argued that the relationship between them and RSAMB did not fall under the contractor-contractee category, and therefore, tax deduction was not required. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, citing conditions that need to be satisfied for section 194C to apply. The CIT(A) referred to relevant case laws and judgments to support the decision, ultimately deleting the addition made by the A.O.

- The second issue revolved around the violation of section 194J of the Act for payments made to advocates/chartered accountants for professional services. The assessee contended that due taxes were paid by the professionals, relieving the payer from further tax deduction responsibilities. The CIT(A) referred to Circular No. 275/202/95-IT(B) and relevant case laws, including a Supreme Court judgment, to support the decision of deleting the demand raised by the A.O.

- The third issue addressed the leviability of interest under Section 201(1A) and the requirement of charging interest u/s 201(1A) in specific scenarios. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages case to rule that when the payee has paid due tax, the payer is not liable to deduct tax at source, deleting the demand raised by the A.O.

- The fourth issue involved compliance with Circular No.275/202/95-IT(B) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case regarding interest u/s 201(1A) and penalty u/s 271C. The Tribunal, in line with a previous judgment, dismissed the appeals of the revenue, as the facts were identical to a previously adjudicated case, leading to no merit in the department's appeals.