2023 (6) TMI 265 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194H - non deduction of TDS on consultancy fees, commission payment and payment to HUF - HELD THAT - The recipients have shown these receipts as their income. AO not disputed about the nature of expenses and their incurrence for the purpose of their business, his only grievance was that the assessee has not deducted the TDS while making the payments. All these payments are covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Cocacola 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT therefore, we allow the appeals of the assessee in both the years and delete the disallowances. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the disallowance of consultancy fees, failure to deduct TDS on payments, and disallowance of expenses in Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Assessment Year 2012-13:
- The assessee contested the disallowance of consultancy fees, payment to Ravi Lochan Singh HUF, and commission payments to Monisha Rao Saraswati, Ankita Saikia, and Surya Narayan Mishra due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act.
- The assessee argued that recipients had included these payments in their income tax returns and paid taxes accordingly.
- Payments to Dr. Sitasaran Singh and M/s. Ravi Lochan Singh HUF were supported by evidence of tax returns and payment of taxes.
- The Tribunal referred to the decision in Hindustan Cocacola vs. CIT, stating that if recipients include payments in their income, the payer is not liable for TDS deduction failure.
- As the recipients recognized the payments in their income, the disallowances were overturned, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Assessment Year 2013-14:
- The disallowance of payments to nine agents and advertisement expenses was contested by the assessee for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H.
- Similar to the previous year, the recipients had shown these payments as income in their tax returns.
- The Tribunal relied on the Hindustan Cocacola case to rule that if recipients include payments in their income, TDS deduction failure by the payer does not warrant disallowance.
- Considering the nature of expenses and their business purpose, the disallowances were deemed unjustified, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna allowed the appeals of the assessee for both Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, overturning the disallowances based on the recipients' inclusion of payments in their income tax returns and the precedent set by the Hindustan Cocacola case.