2016 (11) TMI 879 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C or 192 - non deduction of TDS on payment of wages to the labourers - nature of contract - Held that - When a person is hired to be an employee, the person enters into a contract of service, which is an employer/employee relationship. Another type of contract between two parties is that of an independent contractor or a contract for service. This type of contract may be defined as a contract by which a person, contractor or service provider makes a commitment to another person, the client, to carry out material or intellectual work or to provide a service for a price or fee. The characteristics of a contract for service are that the contractor is free to choose the means of performing the contract and no relationship of subordination exists between the contractor or the provider of services and the client in respect of such performance. In the instant case before us the ld. DR has not brought anything contrary to the findings of ld. CIT(A). In our considered view the wages in the instant case are covered under section 192 of the Act. Therefore the provisions of section 194C are not applicable. In the instant case the payment has been made to the employees of the assessee. In view of above we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue.
2. Addition made by Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C(2) r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The Revenue filed a condonation petition citing work overload as the reason for the delay. The assessee did not object to the condonation. The Appellate Tribunal considered the circumstances and condoned the delay, proceeding to hear the appeal.

Issue 2: Addition for Non-Deduction of TDS
The case involved an individual engaged in a contracting business, where the Assessing Officer disallowed an expense of ?89,64,219 for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition after considering evidence of PF & ESI deductions made for the laborers. The Commissioner concluded that the laborers were employees, not contractors, and hence, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable.

The Revenue contended that the laborers were not employees, citing the absence of employment letters. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the employment relationship, noting that wages are treated similarly to salaries under the Act. It explained the distinction between contracts of service (employee-employer relationship) and contracts for service (independent contractor relationship). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, as the wages in question were covered under section 192 (salary to employees), not section 194C. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the non-deduction of TDS on wages paid to laborers, considering them as employees rather than contractors.