9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 381 - AT - Income TaxNon-deduction of TDS u/s 194C - transportation expenses incurred by the assessee - HELD THAT - Admittedly the assessee is buying the pineapples from different states which are brought to the state of Gujarat. Such goods cannot be transported by the assessee without incurring the transportation cost. In the case on hand, on perusal of the truck numbers to whom the assessee has made payment for the transportation expenses, we find that all of those numbers are registered with the state of Kerala from where the assessee is transporting the goods. Thus it can be inferred that all these transporters were engaged by the supplier but the payment was made by the assessee in her books accounts. Thus it can be inferred that there was no contract between the assessee and the transporters and accordingly the provisions of section 194C of the Act cannot be invoked in the case on hand - See M/S. PRAMUKH JUTE TRADERS VERSUS ITO 2009 (9) TMI 981 - ITAT AHMEDABAD . There cannot be any disallowance of the expenses in the given facts and circumstances on account of non-deduction of TDS. Likewise, the judgments referred by the learned DR at the time of hearing are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Accordingly we are reluctant to rely the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The main contention raised by the Assessee was the disallowance of expenses amounting to ?13,82,900 for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act. The Assessee argued that the transportation expenses were incurred by the supplier and were part of purchases, thus outside the purview of TDS provisions. However, the Commissioner disagreed, stating lack of evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee, engaged in the trading of pineapple fruits, incurred transportation expenses without deducting TDS under section 194C of the Act. The Assessee contended that the transport expenses were borne by the supplier and were part of purchases. The Commissioner found no evidence supporting this and upheld the disallowance. The Assessee further argued before the Tribunal that there was no contract between the Assessee and the transport contractor, thus TDS was not applicable. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 194C(1) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement to deduct TDS on expenses incurred under a contract. It was observed that the transporters were engaged by the supplier, and there was no direct contract between the Assessee and the transporters. Referring to a previous ITAT order, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a direct contract between the Assessee and the transporters, the provisions of section 194C of the Act could not be invoked. The Tribunal differentiated the facts of the present case from judgments cited by the Revenue, ultimately allowing the Assessee's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed, overturning the decision of the Commissioner. In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, highlighting the absence of a direct contract between the Assessee and the transporters, thereby rendering the disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act unwarranted. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the specific contractual requirements outlined in the Act and distinguished the case at hand from previous judgments, ultimately leading to the allowance of the Assessee's appeal.
|
