2018 (11) TMI 1483 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - payment made to Transporters without deducting TDS - Held that - As relying on Soma Rani Ghosh vs. DCIT 2016 (10) TMI 55 - ITAT KOLKATA we uphold the plea of the assessee and delete the impugned disallowance as it is not even in dispute that when we read section 194C(6) independently, and not in conjunction with section 194C(7), there is no default in tax withholding obligations leading to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance thus stands deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) for AY 2012-13 - Non-deduction of TDS under section 194C(6) - Charging of interest under section 234C and 234D.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Order:
The appellant challenged the correctness of the order dated 29th August, 2016, passed by the CIT(A) regarding the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant raised grievances related to the CIT(A)'s alleged failure to appreciate submissions and evidence properly, the addition to income for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C(6), and the charging of interest under sections 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Non-Deduction of TDS under Section 194C(6):
During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the appellant had credited amounts to certain vendors without deducting TDS. The appellant argued that TDS deduction was not required as the vendors had complied with section 194C(6) by providing PAN details. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the plea, invoking section 40(a)(i) due to the appellant's failure to furnish the required details to the prescribed authority within the specified time. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing the importance of complying with the provisions of section 194C(6) and 194C(7) for TDS deduction.

3. Legal Analysis and Precedent:
The Tribunal referred to a Division Bench decision in a similar case, emphasizing key points such as the definition of a contractor, the impact of amendments in the Finance Act, and the independence of sections 194C(6) and 194C(7). The Tribunal concluded that if the assessee complies with the provisions of section 194C(6), no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is permissible, even if there is a violation of section 194C(7). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's plea and deleted the disallowance amount, as there was no default in tax withholding obligations under section 194C(6) when considered independently.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision and deleting the disallowance amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with specific TDS provisions under section 194C(6) and clarified that adherence to these requirements could prevent disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The decision provided a clear legal interpretation based on relevant precedents and statutory provisions, ultimately favoring the appellant in this case.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case's legal intricacies and implications.