2022 (1) TMI 840 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment of transportation contracts - whether the Tribunal was right in law in aggregating the payments on the basis of truck numbers for the purpose of determining the limit of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 194C (3) of the IT Act? - HELD THAT - The action of the revenue in denying the deduction under Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act on the premise that the aggregate of the truck amount paid by the assessee with the different truck drivers was exceeding ₹ 50,000/- cannot be countenanced as the contract cannot be with the trucks, it is with the personnel/driver of the truck/truck operators. The whole attempt made by the revenue to bring the assessee under the ambit of Section 194C to deny the deduction under Section 40(a) (ia) is not supported by the material evidence. The truck operators if not the truck owners, cannot be considered as the sub contractors for the purpose of Section 194C (2) of the Act. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the authorities and to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. AO shall record a finding after examining the contract if any, entered by the assessee with the truck owners/ operators and an appropriate decision shall be taken in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the registration number of trucks/truck owner would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the applicability of Section 194 C of the Act but it is the personnel/truck operator from whom the trucks are hired. With the aforesaid observations and directions, appeal stands allowed as indicted above sans answering the substantial questions of law, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by not following the decision of a co-ordinate bench.
2. Whether the Tribunal's findings on the appellant's invoice splitting and continuous transportation contracts are perverse.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in aggregating payments based on truck numbers for determining the ? 50,000 limit under Section 194C(3).
4. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) when proceedings under Section 201 were not initiated.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Adherence to Co-ordinate Bench Decision:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to follow the decision in M/s. Deccan Roadways v/s The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, where a similar matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration. Despite citing this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without proper consideration. The court noted that the Tribunal should have considered the earlier decision, which required a comprehensive examination by the AO to determine if the appellant's case fell under Section 194C.

2. Tribunal's Findings on Invoice Splitting and Continuous Contracts:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal's findings on invoice splitting and continuous contracts were perverse. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant engaged in continuous transportation contracts and split invoices to avoid TDS under Section 194C. The appellant argued that the truck operators were not truck owners and that payments were made directly to drivers, not exceeding the ? 50,000 limit per truck operator. The court found that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the arguments and material evidence, leading to an unjust decision.

3. Aggregation of Payments Based on Truck Numbers:
The Tribunal aggregated payments based on truck numbers to determine the ? 50,000 limit under Section 194C(3). The appellant argued that the contract was with the truck operators, not the trucks, and that the aggregate payment to a particular truck holder did not exceed the prescribed limit. The court highlighted that the contract should be considered with the personnel/driver of the truck, not the truck itself, and the revenue's attempt to aggregate payments based on truck numbers was not supported by material evidence.

4. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) Without Section 201 Proceedings:
The appellant argued that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as no proceedings under Section 201 were initiated. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, but the court noted that the AO failed to establish the existence of a contract between the appellant and truck operators. The court emphasized that the revenue's action to deny the deduction under Section 40(a)(ia) was not supported by material evidence, and the truck operators could not be considered sub-contractors under Section 194C(2).

Conclusion:
The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to examine any contracts between the appellant and truck operators and make an appropriate decision in accordance with the law. The court clarified that the registration number of trucks is irrelevant for determining the applicability of Section 194C, and it is the personnel/truck operator from whom the trucks are hired that matters. The appeal was allowed, and the substantial questions of law were left unanswered, directing the AO to re-examine the matter with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open.

← Previous Next →