2002 (5) TMI 231 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of creation of demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of provisions of section 194C to the payments made for printed labels.
3. Nature of the contract: whether it is a works contract or a purchase contract.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confirmation of creation of demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A)
The assessee's appeal challenges the order confirming the creation of demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) for the financial year 1995-96. The appeal for the financial year 1996-97 was not considered due to procedural deficiencies, including the non-payment of fees for both years and the filing of a single set of papers.

Issue 2: Applicability of provisions of section 194C
A survey u/s 133A revealed that the assessee did not deduct tax as per section 194C from payments made to M/s. Mudranika for printed labels. The Assessing Officer, referencing Circular No. 715 dated 8-8-1995, held that section 194C applied to the transaction. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the work done by M/s. Mudranika was as per the specifications of the assessee, thus falling under section 194C.

Issue 3: Nature of the contract: works contract vs. purchase contract
The assessee argued that the transaction was a purchase, not a works contract, citing the Supreme Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. The CIT(A) rejected this, noting that the labels were printed as per the assessee's specifications, making it a works contract. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in Sarvodaya Printing Press v. State of Maharashtra, concluded that the supply of printed labels was a works contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the intention of the parties and the nature of the contract, which involved specific printing instructions, made it a works contract. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's reliance on the Wadilal Dairy International Ltd. case, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decision took precedence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of creating a demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A), confirming that the transaction was a works contract subject to TDS u/s 194C. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.