2019 (6) TMI 233 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - commission agent or lorry booking agent - only arranges the vehicles for the people who transport the goods - Expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc - HELD THAT - The matching of the freight received and freight paid but for the difference of 1.15% which accounts for the commission of the assessee, indicates that the assessee is nothing but an intermediary between the clients and the vehicle owners/operators and mainly facilitates the contract for carrying goods. Having regard to the volumes of the freight received and paid in contrast to the earnings of the assessee, analyzed in the background of the observations of CIT(A) that the assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business,but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. The assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions u/s 194C have no application. No coming to the contention of the assessee that the ad hoc addition on estimate basis is non-sustainable, insofar as the provisions under Chapter XVII-b in general and to section 194C in particular, disallowance on estimate basis cannot be sustained. Viewing from any angle, we find it difficult to sustain the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and, therefore, direct the same to be deleted. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Invocation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disallowance of expenses on an estimate basis.
2. Determination of whether the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C of the Act for payments made to truck owners for transportation services.
3. Assessment of whether the assessee is acting as a facilitator or provider of transport services, and not as a transporter.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the confirmation of the order invoking section 40(a)(ia) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for disallowance of expenses amounting to ?42,60,708 on an estimate basis. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in TDS deductions on freight payments made by the assessee, leading to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee, engaged in transportation business, did not provide necessary details regarding TDS deductions on freight payments. The Assessing Officer estimated 1/5th of the total claim as liable for tax deduction, resulting in the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act.

3. The assessee contended that they acted as a facilitator and did not own any vehicles for transportation services. They argued that the arrangement with truck owners was solely for transportation of goods, not for hiring vehicles. The assessee maintained that they engaged transporters based on margins earned, not as service providers. The contention was supported by the absence of expenses related to transportation in their accounts.

4. The Department argued that the assessee, despite not owning vehicles, engaged transporters as sub-contractors for goods transportation, making them liable for TDS deductions under section 194C. The Department justified the disallowance based on the contractual arrangements between the assessee, clients, and transporters.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the assessee's business, concluding that they acted as a facilitator and not a transporter. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's role was that of a lorry booking agent, arranging transportation for clients without owning vehicles. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not the "person responsible" for TDS deductions under section 194C.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the disallowance on an estimate basis was not sustainable under section 194C. The Tribunal held that the assessee's role as a facilitator in arranging transportation services exempted them from TDS obligations, leading to the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee, recognizing their role as a facilitator in arranging transportation services and not as a transporter, thereby absolving them from TDS obligations under section 194C and overturning the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.