2013 (7) TMI 258 - AT - Income Tax

Non deduction of TDS on freight charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As the present assessee had, in fact, paid the TDS amounts into the accounts of the Government well before the due dates of filing of her returns of income for the assessment years under consideration, thus in conformity with the judicial views referred in ACIT v. M.G. Vishwanath Reddy 2012 (4) TMI 317 - ITAT BANGALORE & Tube Investments of India Limited v. ACIT 2009 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT CIT (A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AOs u/s 40(a)(ia). In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in relation to freight charges for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue were against the CIT (A)'s orders concerning disallowances of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for freight charges. The assessee, an individual, was the proprietrix of two enterprises and had filed returns for the relevant assessment years.

2. The assessing officers disallowed significant amounts for freight charges for both years under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non-deduction of TDS. However, the CIT (A) allowed the appeals after considering the provisions of section 194C(2) and various case laws, emphasizing that TDS was not required in the absence of a contract between the assessee and the truck owner/driver.

3. The Revenue contended that TDS should have been deducted as per a ruling by the Rajasthan High Court, which held that TDS is applicable even for transportation services. The AR argued that payments for truck hire did not qualify as 'work' under section 194C, citing relevant court decisions.

4. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had remitted TDS amounts to the government before the due dates, as acknowledged by the AOs. Relying on precedents and analyzing section 195A, it was concluded that once TDS compliance was met, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

5. The Tribunal referenced the decision in ACIT v. M.G. Vishwanath Reddy and the Madras High Court case of Tube Investments of India Ltd v. ACIT to support the view that TDS compliance before the due date negates disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years, emphasizing the distinction in facts from the Rajasthan High Court ruling.

6. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AOs under section 40(a)(ia) for the assessment years in question, highlighting the timely remittance of TDS by the assessee as a crucial factor in determining the non-sustainability of the disallowances.