2016 (2) TMI 1167 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J - Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) for payment of air freight expenses without deduction of tax at source - relation between the assessee and the agent - Held that - Amount that was paid by the assessee to the agents were towards freight reimbursements and that there was no income component in the hands of agents - In view of the case Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. 2014 (1) TMI 1708 - SUPREME COURT it is held that the relation between the assessee and the agent is principal and agent - so far as the obligation to deduct tax at source from the payment of transport charges and other charges is concerned, the same was complied with by the agent, who had made payment on its behalf - Thus deleting the disallowance confirmed Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on air freight expenses.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessee, engaged in the business of growing flowers, had filed its return of income showing a loss. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer. The issue revolved around the disallowance of &8377; 1,03,06,639/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act concerning payment for air freight expenses without the deduction of tax at source.

During the assessment proceedings, it was noted that the Assessee made payments as air freight expenses without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the payments were towards freight reimbursements, and there was no income component in the hands of the agents. The Assessee's contention was that no TDS was required on reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by C & F agents.

The issue was whether the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the payments made. The CIT(A) held in favor of the Assessee, citing relevant case laws and stating that no TDS was required on reimbursements. The Revenue, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order, appealed. However, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the facts were similar to previous cases where the disallowance was deleted. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary binding decision or challenge the findings of the CIT(A).

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the order of the CIT(A) and ruling in favor of the Assessee. The judgment was pronounced on 12/02/2016 by the Tribunal comprising Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member, and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member.