2020 (12) TMI 1144 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - transportation charges paid during the year - Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source - immunity from obligations of TDS by filing of PAN of payee transporters - HELD THAT - Present year under consideration before us AE s assessment year 2013-14 and therefore unamended provision of clause 6 is to be considered. On perusal of unamended clause 6, it is clear that, if the sub contractor s have supplied their PAN to assessee in respect of hiring/leasing/of vehicles during the course of its business, then assessee shall not deduct any TDS. Thus, as per Clause 6, as it stood prior to amendment, applicable for the year under consideration, in order to get immunity from obligations of TDS, filing of PAN of payee transporter is sufficient, and no confirmation letter as required by Ld.AO is needed. The need to furnish declaration from the contractor s being owners of less than 10 vehicles has been inserted by way of amendment which is effective from 01/06/2015. AR in the paper book, filed Explanatory notes to the Provisions of Finance Act 2015 at page 75, wherein, applicability of amendment to section 194C(6) has been said to take effect from 01/06/2015. Therefore, amended provision of clause 6 to section 194 cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus the intention of legislature was very clear to apply the amended clause 6 prospectively. The objection raised by Ld.CIT(A)/AO in this regard therefore does not hold any waters in eyes of law. Categorically assessee had provided PAN of 5/7 transporters, before Ld.AO. We therefore do not find any reason to uphold disallowance in respect of payments made to 5 transporters whose PAN were submitted by assessee. Accordingly we delete the disallowance made in respect of transporters whose PAN was submitted by assessee. Payments to M/s.Precicse Carrier and M/s.KPR Transport - As submitted assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the same was within the limit prescribed under section 194C(5) - We direct Ld.CIT(A) to verify whether any TDS is to be deducted on payments made by assessee to M/s.Precicse Carrier amounting to ₹ 34,650/- and M/s. KPR Transport, amounting to ₹ 7,230/-. In the event submissions by assessee are found to be correct, no disallowance shall be made.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) being prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.
2. Confirmation of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C.
3. Requirement of declaration from transport contractors for periods prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2015.
4. Applicability of Section 194C(6) exemption based on the provision of PAN by the payee.
5. Compliance with Section 194C(7) by submitting PAN details during assessment proceedings.
6. Interpretation of Section 194C(6) in relation to transport contractors covered by Section 44AE.
7. Procedural compliance with Section 194C(7) and its impact on disallowance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CIT(A) Order:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous and prejudicial. The Tribunal examined the grounds and found that the primary issue was the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C.

2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of Tax:
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of ?56,19,628 under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-compliance with Section 194C. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not produce the required declaration from transport contractors, nor did it provide PAN details during assessment, which led to the disallowance.

3. Requirement of Declaration from Transport Contractors:
The appellant argued that the requirement for a declaration from transport contractors owning less than ten vehicles was not applicable for the period before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the amendment by Finance Act, 2015, introducing this requirement was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14.

4. Applicability of Section 194C(6) Exemption:
The Tribunal clarified that for the assessment year under consideration, the unamended Section 194C(6) applied. It stated that providing the PAN of the payee transporter was sufficient for exemption from TDS obligations, and no additional declaration was needed.

5. Compliance with Section 194C(7):
The Tribunal observed that Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are not interdependent. It noted that the appellant had provided PAN details of five out of seven transporters, which should suffice for compliance under the unamended Section 194C(6).

6. Interpretation of Section 194C(6) and Section 44AE:
The CIT(A)'s finding that the benefit of Section 194C(6) was only for transport contractors covered by Section 44AE was deemed incorrect by the Tribunal. It emphasized that the exemption applied broadly to any transporter providing their PAN.

7. Procedural Compliance with Section 194C(7):
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify the appellant's claim regarding payments to M/s. Precise Carrier and M/s. KPR Transport, which were within the threshold limit under Section 194C(5). If found correct, no disallowance should be made.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance for transporters whose PAN was provided. It directed further verification of specific payments to ensure compliance with Section 194C(5). The judgment underscored the prospective nature of amendments and clarified the non-interdependence of Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7).