2018 (8) TMI 1728 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194H or 194C - payments to regional distributors towards advertisement and sales promotion of its products sold by them - assessee in default - applicability of Provisions of section 201(1)/201(1A) - Held that - As during the assessment proceedings the Department had treated the default of the assessee in not deducting the tax at source on the payment made to its regional distributors for advertisement and brand promotion etc. as default under Section 194-C and the assessment proceedings were finalized. The assessment order has been upheld by this Court. Now in the proceedings under Section 201 of the Act, the Department is treating the same as default under Section 194-H of the Act. Provisions of section 201(1)/201(1A) do not authorize the Department to treat the same default under two provisions. The proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for treating the default of the respondent-assessee under Section 194-H amounts to reviewing the assessment order which had attained finality. The inconsistent stand of the Department in assessment proceedings and the proceedings under Section 201 of the Act is wholly erroneous and bad in law - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
3. Questions of law regarding TDS deduction under Sections 194-H and 194-C of the Act.
4. Treatment of respondent-assessee as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
5. Appeal process from Assessing Officer to Tribunal to High Court.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue appealed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

2. The key issue revolved around the treatment of the respondent-assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS under Sections 194-H and 194-C of the Act. The Assessing Officer conducted an enquiry and found non-deduction of TDS by the respondent-assessee towards advertisement and sales promotion payments made to regional distributors.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order treating the respondent-assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. However, the Tribunal set aside this order, stating that the default should have been considered under Section 194-H, not 194-C, as done in the assessment proceedings.

4. The High Court noted the inconsistent stand of the Department in treating the same default under two different provisions, 194-C in assessment proceedings and 194-H in Section 201 proceedings. The Court held this approach as erroneous and bad in law, as it amounted to reviewing the final assessment order.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeals, answering the questions of law against the Revenue and in favor of the respondent-assessee. The Court highlighted the importance of consistency in applying provisions of the Income Tax Act and concluded the case in favor of the respondent-assessee.