2018 (2) TMI 1337 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) - furnish information in the prescribed form - Held that - Section 194C(7) of the Act requires that the assessee has to furnish information in the prescribed form. It is not in dispute that the CBDT notified the form only on 15.10.2010 which is admittedly applicable for the quarterly statement due on 15.10.2010 and not before that. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition, hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority.- Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax.
- Interpretation of Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act regarding deduction of tax for goods carriages.
- Compliance with prescribed form requirements under Section 194C(7) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the disallowance of a significant amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to non-deduction of tax. The Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount for non-compliance with tax deduction rules. Specifically, reference was made to Section 194C(6) of the Act, which exempts deduction in certain cases involving goods carriages owned by contractors. It was contended that the CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee based on independent interpretations of Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act.

2. In response, the Ld. representative for the assessee argued that Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act should be viewed as separate provisions. The representative emphasized that compliance with Section 194C(6) should negate any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additionally, it was highlighted that the CBDT had only notified the required form on 15.10.2010, creating ambiguity regarding the prescribed form for notification. Consequently, the Ld. representative supported the CIT(Appeals)' decision to delete the addition in question.

3. Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act, which mandate the submission of information in a prescribed form. It was acknowledged that the CBDT had indeed notified the form on 15.10.2010, applicable for the relevant quarterly statement due on the same date. Given this timeline, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(Appeals)' decision to delete the addition, as the prescribed form was not available before the specified date. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the lower authority's ruling, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal pronounced its decision on 25th January 2018 in Chennai, confirming the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of complying with statutory provisions, particularly regarding tax deduction requirements under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case highlighted the significance of timely adherence to prescribed forms and notifications to avoid potential disallowances and tax implications.