2020 (2) TMI 1402 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J - amount paid to Inspectors and Supervisors of the Mid Day Meal programme - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2017 (11) TMI 1931 - ITAT CHANDIGARH payments made to Mid Day Meals Scheme Workers which do not attract Section 194J precisely. On perusal of the above Section 194J the payments made to Mid Day Meal Workers at no stretch of imagination can be treated as fees paid for profession or technical services. Hence the interest levied under section 201(1A) is unwarranted. TDS on the payments made under Mid Day Meal programme - HELD THAT - As decided in own case assessee submitted that the payments were made to institutions which were registered under section 12A. The Ld. CIT(A) has remanded the latter back to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. Hence we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as it's a matter of verification only at the Assessing Officer's end.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order of CIT(A) dated 21/07/2017.
2. Challenge to order holding appellant as assessee in default u/s. 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS.
3. Dispute regarding interest levied u/s. 201(1A) without specifying the period.
4. Request for adding, amending, or deleting grounds of appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against CIT(A) order
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 21/07/2017. Grounds 1 & 4 were general and did not require specific comments.

Issue 2: Non-deduction of TDS under section 201(1)
The primary grievance of the appellant was the creation of additional demand due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194J for payments made to Mid Day Meal Scheme Workers. The CIT(A) confirmed the demand based on the AO's order for the AY 2011-12. However, the appellant contended that a previous ITAT order favored them, stating that the payments made were not subject to TDS under section 194J as they were not fees for professional or technical services. The ITAT allowed the appeal, citing that the payments to Mid Day Meal Workers did not fall under the purview of section 194J.

Issue 3: Interest levied u/s. 201(1A)
The appellant also contested the interest levied u/s. 201(1A) without a specified period. The ITAT, following a previous order, found that the interest was unwarranted as the payments to Mid Day Meal Workers did not qualify as fees for professional or technical services under section 194J. Consequently, the impugned demand was deleted.

Issue 4: Non-deduction of TDS under section 194C
Regarding the demand under section 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C, the ITAT noted that the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification in a previous order. Since the issue required verification, the ITAT set it aside for the AO to decide following the directions given in the earlier order.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT ruling in favor of the appellant on the issues related to non-deduction of TDS under sections 194J and 194C, based on the precedents set in previous ITAT orders.

This summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, addressing each issue raised by the appellant and the corresponding decisions made by the ITAT, while maintaining the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.