9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 842 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - Disallowance of job work charges paid without deduction of TDS by invoking provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - Since the amounts paid towards job work charges to master weavers comes within the preview of provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO has rightly disallowed the same u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act - As relying on CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE PARK INTERNATIONAL 2013 (5) TMI 510 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LIMITED 2009 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/S. PALAM GAS SERVICE 2017 (5) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT we find that non-deduction of TDS will attract the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore we find no infirmity in the orders of the AO the Ld.CIT(A) and hence the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of job work charges paid without deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Job Work Charges Paid Without Deduction of TDS: The core issue in this appeal is the disallowance of job work charges amounting to ?2,61,24,420/- paid by the assessee without deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as mandated under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Facts of the Case: The Assessing Officer (AO) during the scrutiny assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had claimed expenses on account of job work charges paid to master weavers but failed to deduct TDS on these payments. Consequently, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the claimed expenses. First Appeal: The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The CIT(A) confirmed that the amounts paid towards job work charges to master weavers fell within the purview of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, justifying the disallowance. Second Appeal: The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. Despite multiple hearings, the assessee did not present arguments, leading the Tribunal to decide the appeal ex parte. The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal referred to several high court decisions, including: - PMS Diesels v. CIT (Punjab & Haryana High Court) - CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate (Calcutta High Court) - Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. ACIT (Madras High Court) - M/s. Palam Gas Service v. CIT (Supreme Court) These cases collectively established that under Section 194C, it is mandatory for a person making payments to a contractor to deduct TDS at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. Section 200 further obligates the person deducting TDS to deposit it with the Central Government within the prescribed time. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in PMS Diesels emphasized that the provisions of Chapter XVII-B are mandatory, using the term "shall" to indicate the obligatory nature of TDS deduction. The Tribunal also discussed the interpretation of the term "payable" in Section 40(a)(ia), concluding that it encompasses both amounts payable and actually paid, reinforcing the mandatory requirement of TDS deduction. Conclusion: The Tribunal, following the established legal precedents, held that the failure to deduct TDS on job work charges attracts the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Order: The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and the order was pronounced on the 28th day of March, 2022, in Chennai.
|
