2016 (7) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - tds on Transportation Charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically given a finding that the assessee sufficiently owned number of trucks and depreciation has been granted to the assessee by the AO on the same. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had verified the P&L Account of the assessee and had come to a conclusion that the Transportation Charges includes only fuel expenses, tyre expenses, trip expenses and driver s salary. We find that the Ld. AO had not brought any material on record to suggest that there was indeed any contract or sub-contract in existence entered into by the assessee. No infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal by the revenue was against the order of CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata regarding an addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The issue revolved around whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of ?39,12,411/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had paid transportation charges to a subcontractor without deducting tax at source, leading to the disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the transportation charges included expenses like fuel, tyres, trip expenses, and driver's salary, which did not require tax deduction at source. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that there was no evidence of a contract with a transporter for hiring trucks, as the assessee owned sufficient trucks. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on a High Court decision stating that without evidence of a contract, the assessee cannot be held liable for tax deduction at source.

The revenue appealed the decision, arguing that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting a general explanation without specific evidence. The Ld. DR contended that the assessment was made under section 144 due to non-appearance and non-furnishing of details by the assessee. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly analyzed the P&L Account and that the AO should have estimated the disallowance if necessary. The Ld. AR emphasized the absence of a contract for hiring charges, supporting the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A).

The ITAT Kolkata considered the arguments and found that the Ld. CIT(A) had properly assessed the situation. The ITAT noted that the assessee owned trucks and that the transportation charges comprised specific expenses not subject to tax deduction at source. Since there was no evidence of a contract, the ITAT upheld the decision based on the High Court ruling. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision to delete the addition under section 40(a)(ia) as the transportation charges did not require tax deduction at source, and there was no evidence of a contract between the assessee and the transporter. The ITAT relied on the High Court's precedent to support its decision, ultimately dismissing the revenue's appeal.