2015 (12) TMI 506 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - non-deduction of TDS on air freight charges - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee made the payment on account of reimbursement of the air freight expenses and nothing was payable at the year end. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Similarly the disallowance on account of sea freight was wrongly made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 194C of the Act which were not applicable, since the individual payment were less than ₹ 50,000/- by different companies and moreover those payments were only the reimbursement of expenses and nothing was payable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO on account of the disallowance of sea freight expenses. We do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on air freight charges
- Deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on sea freight charges
- Applicability of Section 194C of the IT Act
- Interpretation of reimbursement of expenses

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the deletion of additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on air and sea freight charges. The AO had disallowed expenses totaling to Rs. 14,32,027 due to non-deduction of TDS. The assessee contended that TDS was not applicable on air freight as it was a reimbursement of expenses and on sea freight as it was paid to non-resident shipping agents. The AO, however, made the additions invoking Section 194C of the IT Act.

The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the payments were indeed reimbursements and not subject to TDS. The CIT(A) considered the evidence provided, including ledger accounts and bills, and concluded that the provisions of Section 194C were not applicable. The additions were deleted based on the nature of the payments being reimbursement of expenses, supported by relevant case laws.

The department, in its appeal, contended that TDS should have been deducted on air freight and sea freight payments. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case. It was held that since the payments were reimbursements and not payable amounts, the disallowances made by the AO were unjustified. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, emphasizing that the payments in question were reimbursements and not subject to TDS. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between reimbursements and payable amounts in determining the applicability of TDS provisions.