2016 (8) TMI 1393 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C on the value of the bye products - nature of services - assumption of Payment in kind - Held that - Assessee is under no obligation to deduct the tax at source in terms of a contract where it does not require any payment of any sum even if the sum here means that the payment could be of some kind but it is difficult to say that the assessee has made these payments to the extent of shortfall in getting the wheat supplied back and construe it as the payment to the other for processing the wheat into Atta or Daliya. The department must have appreciated the contract as a whole which does not involve any payment or getting the payment for services rendered. It Is a case of barter or exchange or one good against the other. It Is a type of sale contract In a very crude form but it is certainly not a works contract as understood by the courts in cases under the sales tax Although services were taken, it is difficult to say that the residuals and the losses left by the assessee in favour of AIL are purely consideration for the job that is done The market fluctuations in the price structure of the raw material and the end product cannot be just ignored in the whole transaction nor the process loss. The process loss could be either more or less than the percentage agreed to between the parties. But still the parties settle the transactions at an agreed proportion. In other words, the residual that is left by the assessee, apart from covering the labour cost of processing, also includes the protection from market fluctuations as also protection from adverse process loss. To conclude, the entire residual is only for the purpose of job work is not fair and correct having regard to the totality of the transaction entered into by the parties - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the value of byproducts retained by millers.
2. Whether interest should be charged on the assessee for non-deduction of TDS.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Deduct TDS on Byproducts Retained by Millers:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether the assessee, a State Government Agency procuring paddy and engaging millers for custom milling, was required to deduct TDS on the value of byproducts (such as husk and bran) retained by the millers. The Assessing Officer had held that the byproducts should be considered as part of the milling charges, thus requiring TDS deduction under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR argued that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases, notably in ITA Nos.214 to 216 (Asr)/2016 and ITA Nos.54 to 56(Asr)/2016, where it was held that no TDS was required on the value of byproducts.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the material and arguments, found that the CIT(A) had rightly directed the AO not to treat the assessee in default concerning the provisions of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T Act. The Tribunal referenced earlier decisions, including the case of 'M/s. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Nawanshahar vs. ITO, TDS-1, Jalandhar', where it was held that the transaction did not constitute a works contract but rather a barter or exchange of goods, which did not necessitate TDS deduction. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on the byproducts retained by the millers.

2. Charging of Interest for Non-deduction of TDS:
The second issue was whether interest should be charged on the assessee for the alleged non-deduction of TDS. The learned DR argued that the CIT(A) had already provided relief to the assessee by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CIT, stating that interest was to be charged. However, the learned AR contended that if the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, the question of levying interest did not arise.

The Tribunal, aligning with its findings on the first issue, concluded that since the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the value of byproducts, there was no question of charging interest for non-deduction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the assessees, holding that the assessees were not required to deduct TDS on the value of byproducts retained by the millers and, consequently, no interest could be levied for non-deduction of TDS. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2016.