2018 (11) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194I OR 194C - failure to deduct tax correctly on hire charges - Assessee in default - no contract has been placed on record and proved by the assessee - Held that - We find that in order to support its contentions, assessee has not produced any details to demonstrate that the vehicles were used only for transporting of employees at a particular point of time. Admittedly, no copy of contract/agreement has been furnished before the revenue authorities to show that the vehicles were owned, operated and maintained by the contractor. Since the issue whether TDS is to be made u/s 194I or 194C is a pure question of fact and this fact can only be examined by perusing the copy of contract/agreement between the assessee and the party. Since, the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove by furnishing documents to show that vehicles were operated by the contractor and therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, we have no other options except to uphold the action of revenue authorities. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order treating assessee as 'assessee in default' for failure to deduct tax under section 194I of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeal) regarding the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling non-ferrous metal alloys, faced a survey action under section 133A of the I.T. Act. During this action, the CFO's statement was recorded, leading to proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, where it was found that the assessee failed to deduct tax correctly on hire charges as per section 194I. Consequently, the assessee was deemed an 'Assessee in default' for this failure.

The solitary ground of appeal challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the AO's action of treating the assessee as 'assessee in default' for not withholding tax from hire charges paid for various services under section 194I of the I.T. Act. The assessee argued that payments were for transport services, not specific vehicles, and that all other expenses were borne by the contractor. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence, like contracts, to support this claim.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the material and judgments, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that TDS was not required under section 194I. The absence of contracts or agreements between the parties led the Tribunal to uphold the revenue authorities' decision. The Tribunal distinguished cited cases where contracts were pivotal, unlike the present case where no contracts were presented. As no new facts were presented to challenge the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal upheld the decision, deeming it well-reasoned and judicious.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. The order was pronounced on 3rd August 2018.