2016 (4) TMI 302 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - contractual payments of cutting and transporting the sugarcane from fields to the factory gate - assessee in default - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the payment @ ₹ 185/- P.M.T. was given as advance purchase price to farmers to enable them to meet the expenditure of harvesting, cutting and transporting. Therefore, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the assessee liable for deducting the tax on such payments as the payments were not given for carrying out the work of harvesting, cutting and transporting on behalf of the assessee. As decided in assessee s own case in the case on hand, the supply of sugarcanes at the gates of factories of the respective assessees was a part of sale transaction, and therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessees are not liable to deduct TDS. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for AY 2004-05.
2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) should have upheld the order of the AO.
3. Whether the appellant has the right to amend or alter any ground.
4. Whether the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled and that of the AO restored.

Issue 1:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for AY 2004-05. The Assessing Officer observed that no TDS was deducted on payments for cutting and transporting sugarcane, leading to a demand notice. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the payments to cane-growing farmer members were in the nature of purchase price, not subject to section 194C. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer's actions were not justified, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 2:
The ld. CIT(A) was expected to uphold the order of the AO, as argued by the Revenue. However, the ld. CIT(A) found the appellant's case against the Assessing Officer's order to be strong. The appellant demonstrated that payments were advance purchase prices to farmer members for sugarcane, not subject to section 194C. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer's actions were not sustainable, and all grounds of appeal were decided in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3:
The appellant craved leave to amend or alter any ground if necessary, as mentioned in the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, focusing on the liability of the assessee to deduct TDS on contractual payments for cutting and transporting sugarcane. The co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case favored the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 4:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal after considering the arguments of both sides. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s order, stating that the supply of sugarcane to the factory gates was part of a sale transaction and not liable for TDS deduction. The Tribunal confirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Other grounds raised by the Revenue were of a general nature and required no separate adjudication, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the decisions made by the authorities involved.