2016 (11) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

TDS liability arises or not - nature of agreement - Contract v/s joint venture - Held that - We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue for two- fold reason; one is that, there is enough material to show that the amount received of the contract was directly shared by the assessee and Sri Bapuji as per their proportionate share and the second is that it was not a matter where the money/the amount realized of the contract was apportioned as the income of the assessee and thereafter, the portion of it or a major portion was paid by the assessee to Sri Bapuji. When after receipt of the contract amount, the shares are identified and taken by both the parties of the joint venture, it cannot be said as a sub-contract. There is no material brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that there was any contract entered into by the assessee to assign the work to Bapuji as sub-contractor. Further, additional aspect is that, when the respective share is received by the assessee, it has been shown as the income by the assessee in the return of income. Same is the situation for the respective share of Sri Bapuji who has shown its income of the amount received by it. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for us to agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue that the finding of the Tribunal that it was of joint venture between the assessee and Sri Bapuji was contrary to the material or based on conjectures and surmises. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 40a(i)(a) - Held that - In the present case, when the assessee has not claimed any amount towards expenditure pertaining to the contract amount which has been received by the assessee, there would not be any scope for disallowing any amount towards the expenditure. The Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Balaji Engineering Construction Works (2008 (1) TMI 564 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). When the issue is already covered by the decision of this Court, it cannot be said that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the agreement between the assessee and Sri Bapuji is a sub-contract or a joint venture.
2. Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Nature of Agreement - Sub-contract or Joint Venture

The primary question was whether the agreement between the assessee and Sri Bapuji constituted a sub-contract or a joint venture. The Tribunal found that the agreement was more in the nature of a joint venture rather than a sub-contract. This conclusion was based on several observations:

- The contract was awarded to the assessee, but Sri Bapuji executed the work.
- Both parties opened a joint bank account, which Sri Bapuji was authorized to operate.
- The agreement was entered into before the contract was awarded, and the income was shared directly between the assessee and Sri Bapuji as per their proportionate share.

The Tribunal emphasized that the real determinative factor was the point at which Sri Bapuji got the right to receive the income. The agreement showed that Sri Bapuji was entitled to all the benefits of the contract, but the obligations of the contract remained with the assessee. Hence, it was concluded that the income was not diverted by overriding title but was an application of income.

The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence. The Court stated that it would not interfere with the Tribunal's finding of fact unless it was perverse or contrary to the material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue failed to show any material evidence that contradicted the Tribunal's finding that the agreement was a joint venture. Therefore, the Court answered the first question in the negative, against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act

The second question was whether Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act was applicable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed any payment to Sri Bapuji as revenue expenditure and had only offered the commission from the contract as his income. Since the agreement was found to be a joint venture, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable.

Section 40(a)(ia) disallows certain deductions if tax is not deducted at source. However, since the assessee did not claim the payment as an expenditure, there was no question of disallowance. The Tribunal referenced the decision in CIT vs. Balaji Engineering Construction Works, where it was held that if no expenditure is claimed, there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

The High Court agreed with this reasoning, stating that when the assessee has not claimed any amount towards expenditure, there would be no scope for disallowing any amount towards the expenditure. The Court noted that this issue was already covered by the decision in Balaji Engineering Construction Works and thus did not present any substantial question of law. Consequently, the second question was not required to be answered.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's findings that the agreement between the assessee and Sri Bapuji was a joint venture and not a sub-contract, and that Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable since no expenditure was claimed by the assessee. The Court observed that any additional taxation of the income received by Sri Bapuji would result in double taxation, which is impermissible. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.