9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1025 - AT - Income TaxNon-deduction of TDS u/s 194C - DR pointed out that the assessee entered into job works with various companies for the purpose of purchasing the required spare parts for manufacturing passenger cars - Held that - . Since the agreement does not clarify whether the goods purchased by the assessee is one of contract for sale or works contract, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has already observed after referring to clause 5.1 of the agreement that this clause is made for works contract. However, he failed to point out what is the other clause which enables the assessee to purchase the goods on contract for sale. The CIT(A) has made a general observation that the agreement is a comprehensive one which provides for purchase of goods under a contract also. As already observed, there is no clause in the agreement brought to the notice of the Bench which would suggest any contract for sale of goods. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to place the material facts before the Assessing Officer would promote the cause of justice. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Reopening of assessment - exclusion of processing charges and disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC on export incentive - Held that - Proviso to sec. 147 is very clear that after expiry of fours from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment which was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act unless there was negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts relevant for completing the assessment. In this case, the assessee has disclosed all material facts relevant for completing the assessment and the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of the retrospective amendment made by the Parliament in the year 2005. As already observed, the assessee is not expected to anticipate the retrospective amendment that may be made by the Parliament in future. Therefore, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad in law. Accordingly, the consequential assessment made by the Assessing Officer cannot stand in the eye of law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 for the assessment year 2002-03. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C for the assessment year 2009-10 Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the assessee, engaged in manufacturing and selling passenger cars, entered into an agreement with M/s Hanil Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing components. The Revenue contended that this constituted a works contract requiring the deduction of tax at source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The vendor manufactured goods exclusively for the assessee, using raw materials supplied by the assessee, and thus, the transaction was not a mere purchase of spare parts but a works contract. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee without thoroughly examining the material facts. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that it had entered into agreements for both manufacturing spare parts by supplying raw materials and purchasing goods directly. TDS was deducted for works contracts but not for direct purchases. The assessee maintained that Section 194C applies only to works contracts and not to the purchase of goods. The vendors had already paid the taxes, and confirmation letters from the vendors were submitted as evidence. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal examined the definition of "work" under Section 194C(7) and noted that manufacturing or supplying a product according to the customer's specifications using material purchased from the customer falls under "work." However, if the material is purchased from someone other than the customer, it does not. The agreement titled "Basic Purchase Agreement" indicated that the assessee supplied raw materials for manufacturing, implying a works contract. The CIT(A) failed to differentiate between components ordered under works contracts and those purchased directly. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the agreements and determine whether the transactions were simple purchases or works contracts. The Assessing Officer was also directed to verify if the vendors had paid the taxes as per the confirmation letters. Issue 2: Reopening of assessment under Section 147 for the assessment year 2002-03 Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 29.3.2005, and the assessment was reopened based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) made in 2005. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 17.3.2009, beyond the four-year limit from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee contended that there was no failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, and the reopening was solely based on the retrospective amendment, which the assessee could not have anticipated. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer had the authority to reopen the assessment if there was tangible material indicating that income had escaped assessment. The retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) justified the reopening. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the assessee is expected to file returns based on the law prevailing at the end of the financial year. The assessee could not have anticipated the retrospective amendment made in 2005 while filing the return for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal emphasized that the reopening of assessment after four years is permissible only if there was a failure to disclose material facts, which was not the case here. The reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid, and consequently, the assessment order was set aside. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the exclusion of processing charges and disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC on export incentives. Conclusion: - The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2009-10 was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. - The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 was allowed, and the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid.
|
