2019 (4) TMI 405 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee in default - non deduction of TDS u/s 194C - payment to contractor - HELD THAT - Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , has held that the taxes cannot be recovered once again from assessee in a situation in which recipient of income has paid due taxes on income embedded in payments from which tax withholding requirements were not fully or partly, complied with by assessee. We are therefore inclined to set aside this issue to Ld.AO for verification whether taxes has been paid by RIETS on amount received from assessee during the year under consideration, either directly or in the form of withholding tax, which stands deposited with government Treasury as per law - allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the lower authorities erred in sustaining an addition under various sections of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C.
2. Whether the nature of transactions between the assessee and RITES falls outside the purview of section 194C.
3. Whether the TDS provisions have been properly complied with by the appellant.
4. Whether proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided by the lower authorities.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee was required to deduct TDS under section 194C while crediting amounts to RITES. As the assessee failed to provide details, the AO initiated proceedings under section 201(1)/201(1A) and imposed a penalty. The CIT (A) restricted the liability to a certain amount as TDS was not deducted and no evidence was provided. The Tribunal observed that the AO should verify whether taxes were paid by RITES on the amount received from the assessee during the relevant year. The issue was set aside for verification, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the payments made to RITES were in the nature of an advance and that RITES acted as a pass-through entity, deducting TDS on payments made to contractors. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the appellant contended that they should not be held liable for TDS under section 194C if TDS was deducted and taxes were paid. The Senior DR, however, argued that TDS provisions applied as payments exceeded prescribed limits during the year. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the AO for verification of tax payments by RITES.

Issue 3: The appellant claimed that as RITES was a government undertaking, taxes could be presumed to have been paid by the due date of filing returns. Citing relevant case law, the appellant argued that the liability to pay interest on TDS ends with the due date of filing by RITES. The Tribunal referred to the amendment in section 201 and directed the AO to verify whether taxes were paid by RITES on the amount received from the assessee.

Issue 4: The appellant contended that they were not given sufficient time to furnish relevant records before the AO passed the order. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and decided to set aside the issue for verification by the AO. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.