2018 (8) TMI 1357 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C - absence of contract between the transporter and assessee - Held that - the assessee has placed an order for supply of the goods which was transported by the supplier and as per the instructions of the supplier, the payment was made. The assessee has neither engaged the services of the transporter nor the transporter rendered the services to the assessee, on receipt of goods the assessee has made the payment as per the to pay bill issued by the supplier. The revenue has not made out any case to establish that the assessee had engaged the services of transporter to carry the goods. From the above facts, there is no express or implied contract between the assessee and the transporter. It is a case of engaging the transporters by the supplier and supply the goods to the assessee. Therefore, there is no case for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C. Once it is established that the assessee does not require to deduct the tax at source, there is no case for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of tax at source.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background: The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07.

2. Facts: The assessee incurred transport expenses and made payments to transport contractors without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses under section 40(a)(ia) as there was no deduction of tax at source.

3. Arguments: The revenue contended that as the assessee made payments to the transporter, tax deduction at source was required. However, the assessee argued that there was no contract with the transporter as the goods were transported by the supplier's transport agency.

4. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 194C and noted that for tax deduction at source under this section, there must be a contract between the assessee and the transporter. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not engaged the services of the transporter directly but had received goods through the supplier's transport agency.

5. Precedent and Decision: The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was held that mere payment of freight charges does not constitute a contract between the assessee and the transport agency. As the assessee did not require to deduct tax at source under section 194C, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was also not applicable.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that since there was no case for deduction of tax at source under section 194C, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

This detailed analysis shows how the Tribunal interpreted the provisions of the Income Tax Act and applied relevant legal principles to decide on the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source in the case at hand.