2013 (5) TMI 196 - AT - Income Tax

Liability to deduct TDS - whether the payment made by the assessee to the transporters was in the nature of contractual payment by virtue of inclusive definition of work in Expl.III to sec. 194C which includes transportation of goods by any means - disallowance of expenditure by invoking the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) - CIT deleted the liability - Held that - AO has not established the fact that there is existence of contract written or oral & has simply stated that since the assessee has not deducted the tax at source on the impugned payments, this issue is not material. See ACIT vs. Niten Shah (2013 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) & C.I.T (TDS) vs. United Rice Land Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) wherein held that there was neither any oral or written agreement between the assessee or the transporters for carriage of goods nor has it been proved that any freight charges were paid to them in pursuance of a contract for a specified period. The assessee was not required to deduct tax u/s. 194C from the payments made to the transporters. Also in this case loading and unloading has been done by the persons other than the mule owners who have only carried the goods between the two points and have not loaded and unloaded the same themselves in this regard referring to decision of Bombay Goods Transport Association vs. CBDT (1994 (7) TMI 65 - BOMBAY High Court) wherein held that section 194C does not apply to the Transport Contracts for mere carrying of goods without loading and unloading. We further find that Section 194C of the Act exempts payments to one entity from operation of it if it is below a certain amount per year. In this case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has opined that substantial quantum of payment would be below the exemption limit. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the payment made by the assessee to the transporters was in the nature of contractual payment under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on such payments.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) due to the assessee's default in fulfilling the provisions of section 194C.
3. Whether the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) were applicable to the post-amendment period.
4. Whether the other payments made by the assessee were rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) for failing to deduct tax at source.
5. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in holding that some payments might be below the exempted limit without specific findings or giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee, engaged in soapstone mining, used mules for transportation. The Assessing Officer found expenses lacking evidence and made disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for TDS default under section 194C. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted the absence of a contract between the mule owners and the assessee, which is essential for section 194C. Relying on precedents, it was concluded that without a contract, section 194C was not violated, and the disallowance was deleted.

Issue 2:
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that the absence of a contract and the mule owners' role in only transporting goods, not loading/unloading, exempted the assessee from section 194C. It was further noted that substantial payments were likely below the exemption limit, relieving the assessee from the provisions of sections 194C and 40(a)(ia).

Issue 3:
The Tribunal found that without an oral or written contract, section 194C was not applicable. Precedents highlighted the necessity of a contract for the section's application. The absence of a contract and the mule owners' limited role led to the conclusion that the provisions of section 194C were not attracted in this case.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of a contract for section 194C and noted the absence of such a contract in this case. The mule owners' limited involvement and the likelihood of payments being below the exemption limit further supported the decision that the provisions of section 194C were not attracted.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s decision that without a contract, section 194C was not applicable. The absence of loading/unloading by mule owners and the probable payments below the exemption limit led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.