2016 (8) TMI 1543 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - payment made by the assessee during the year under consideration to a particular owner of vehicle contractor for transportation of iron ore - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) treating the transaction between the Appellant and truck owners as works contract - whether appellant dealt only with the facilitators for the transportation of iron ore minerals from the site to the specified destination and there is no contract between the truck owners and the Appellant? - HELD THAT - In the case on hand the hiring of the transporter is not on isolated occasion but it was for continuous transportation of iron ore mineral to ports and further the agreement between the assessee and the transporter is based on per M.T. transportation. Therefore the rate of transportation was agreed between the parties on the basis of the quantity and not on the basis of per trip - payment made to the particular transporter for transportation of iron ore from mines to ports during the year under consideration has to be aggregated for the purpose of section 194C(3) - In this case the Assessing Officer has only aggregated the amount paid in respect of a particular truck and there may be a case that more than one truck has been hired by the assessee from a particular transporter. Accordingly we do not find any merit or substance in the contention raised by the assessee. Amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act 2014 to be considered with retrospective effect - In the ordinary circumstances when an amendment has been specifically brought into statute w.e.f. a specific date then the same cannot be considered as retrospective in nature until and unless the said amendment is for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. Therefore it is clear that only in the case where the amendment is brought into statute for supply of omission in the existing legislation or it is explanatory in nature it can be considered retrospective. In the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT the amendment brought into Section 80IB(10) of the Act was considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court as retrospective in nature because of the reason that after the said amendment the benefits were available only to some persons and it was detrimental to the other person for the same assessment year. This is not the case of the assessee before us that amendment in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act discriminates different assessees for the same assessment year. Therefore the said decision cannot be applied to the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the amendment has been brought prospective w.e.f. 1.4.2015 therefore the same cannot be considered as retrospective. Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to deduct tax under section 194C.
2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
3. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Deduct Tax Under Section 194C:
The primary issue is whether the payment made by the assessee to vehicle owners for the transportation of iron ore should be aggregated for TDS under Section 194C, leading to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that each trip constituted a separate contract, and individual payments did not exceed Rs. 50,000, thus not requiring TDS. The CIT (Appeals) disagreed, holding that there was an oral contract between the assessee and truck owners, necessitating TDS for aggregate payments exceeding Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the transportation was a continuous activity, and payments were made per metric ton, not per trip, thus requiring aggregation for TDS purposes.

2. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia):
The assessee contended that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as the hire charges were paid during the year and not outstanding at year-end. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the basis of payment was per metric ton, and the continuous nature of transportation necessitated TDS on aggregated payments. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's reliance on the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014, which limited disallowance to 30% of the expenditure for TDS defaults, stating that the amendment was prospective from 1.4.2015 and not retrospective.

3. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A and 234B:
The assessee challenged the interest levied under Sections 234A and 234B, arguing that the disallowance itself was untenable. However, since the Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was also upheld.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the payments made to transporters should be aggregated for TDS purposes under Section 194C, leading to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal also upheld the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, rejecting the argument for retrospective application of the amendment limiting disallowance to 30% of the expenditure.