2016 (4) TMI 1007 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of TDS on hire charges paid - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - Mere hiring of vehicle without any risk associated with the carriage of goods does not amount to carrying out any work or sub contract as defined u/s 194C(2) of the Act. Consequently, hire charges paid for hiring the vehicles are not liable for TDS u/s 194C(2) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C.
2. Nature of transactions between the assessee and vehicle owners.
3. Applicability of TDS provisions on mere hiring of vehicles.
4. Validity of the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C:
The primary issue in this case is whether the assessee's payments for hiring vehicles are subject to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed ?66,84,347/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for the failure to deduct TDS on hire charges paid to vehicle owners. The CIT(A) initially confirmed the disallowance, but the ITAT set aside the assessment to verify the nature of transactions between the assessee and vehicle owners.

2. Nature of transactions between the assessee and vehicle owners:
The assessee contended that the payments were for mere hiring of vehicles and not for a sub-contract, thus not attracting TDS under Section 194C(2). The assessee argued that the vehicle owners provided vehicles on a fixed hire basis without any involvement in the transportation of goods, and the risk associated with the carriage of goods was borne by the assessee alone. The Assessing Officer, however, viewed the arrangement as a contract, requiring TDS deduction.

3. Applicability of TDS provisions on mere hiring of vehicles:
The ITAT examined whether the hiring of vehicles constituted a sub-contract under Section 194C(2). It referred to the decisions in M/s. Mythri Transport Corporation Vs. ACIT and M. Seetaramaiah Vs. ACIT, which held that mere hiring of vehicles does not amount to carrying out any work as defined under Section 194C(2). The ITAT found that there was no direct contract between vehicle owners and the customers, and the vehicle owners did not bear any risk associated with the carriage of goods. Thus, the payments were not subject to TDS under Section 194C(2).

4. Validity of the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee challenged the validity of the second consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer, arguing that it was contrary to the first order. The ITAT clarified that the Assessing Officer's second order was a de-novo assessment as directed by the ITAT and was valid. Therefore, the appeal against the second order was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that mere hiring of vehicles does not constitute a sub-contract under Section 194C(2), and thus, no TDS was required to be deducted. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's cross objection regarding the validity of the consequential order. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee were both dismissed.

Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 18th March 2016.