2018 (9) TMI 858 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - assessee has not made the TDS on labour charges - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has got the work done by the labourers under their supervision. The Department could not establish that there is express or implied contract between the assessee and maistries. Therefore, the facts of the assessees case are squarely covered by the decisions of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of R. Subbaraju 2010 (11) TMI 1076 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM and best feeds 2016 (3) TMI 721 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM . Thus we hold that the payments made to the labour through maistries cannot be construed as a contract between the assessee and the maistries and does not attract the TDS under section 194C of the Income- tax Act and consequently no disallowance is called for under section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Principal/Agent Relationship and Labour Contract
2. Deduction of Tax at Source (TDS) under Section 194C
3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Principal/Agent Relationship and Labour Contract:
The primary issue revolves around whether the payments made by the assessee to the maistries (labour leaders) constitute a principal-agent relationship and thereby a labour contract. The Assessing Officer (AO) inferred that there was a principal/agent relationship between the assessee and the maistries, categorizing the transactions as labour supply contracts. Consequently, the AO held that such payments were liable for deduction of tax at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that there was no written or oral agreement or contract with the maistries, who merely facilitated payments to individual labourers. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) observed that the maistries were not labour contractors and that the payments did not constitute contract payments under Section 194C, thus directing the AO to delete the addition.

2. Deduction of Tax at Source (TDS) under Section 194C:
The Revenue argued that the payments to maistries were subject to TDS under Section 194C, even without a written contract, citing precedents like ITO v. Gopal S. Rajput and Smt. J. Rama v. CIT. The Departmental representative emphasized that the law does not require a written contract for TDS obligations to arise. The assessee countered that the maistries were not contractors but group leaders who procured labour, and there was no contract for labour supply. The assessee relied on various judicial decisions, including Principal CIT v. Swastik Construction, which held that in the absence of a contract, TDS provisions under Section 194C are not attracted.

3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act:
The AO disallowed the labour expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) reversed this disallowance, and the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal examined whether there was a contract requiring TDS deduction. It noted that the payments were made to group leaders for convenience and that the work was supervised by the assessee, not the maistries. The Tribunal found no evidence of a contract for labour supply and highlighted that the AO did not examine the maistries to substantiate the claim of a contractual relationship. Citing precedents like R. Subba Raju v. Addl. CIT and ITO v. Best Feeds, the Tribunal upheld that payments to maistries did not attract TDS under Section 194C and thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the payments made to the maistries were not subject to TDS under Section 194C as there was no contract for labour supply. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 20th July 2018.

← Previous Next →