2022 (7) TMI 1256 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J OR 194C - TDS on repair and maintenance of aircraft - nature of technical fees and not payment of fees for works contract - AR stated that the recipient of the payment has duly offered these payments as its income, accordingly, he made an alternative submission that the benefit of proviso to sec. 201(1) may kindly be given to the assessee - HELD THAT - When it was pointed out by the bench that the assessee is required to furnish a certificate from an accountant in order to avail the benefit of the proviso, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee shall submit the same before the AO. We are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the alternative contention of the assessee may be accepted. However, the claim of the assessee requires verification at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore the alternative contention in all the years under consideration to the file of the AO for examining it in accordance with law. Since the alternative contention is accepted, we are not adjudicating the main grounds of appeal urged by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of TDS provisions for repair and maintenance services on aircraft under IT Act, applicability of sections 194(J) and 194(C), assessee's liability as an assessee in default, benefit of proviso to sec. 201(1) for compliance with TDS provisions.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding TDS on repair and maintenance services of aircraft. The Assessing Officer determined a shortfall of TDS and interest, treating the services as technical fees under section 194(J) instead of works contract fees under section 194(C). The assessee contended that TDS should have been deducted under section 194C, not 194J, as the services were for works contract. The Ld.A.R argued that the recipient had declared the payments as income and requested the benefit of the proviso to sec. 201(1), which was not claimed earlier due to representation issues.

During the proceedings, the Ld A.R made an alternative submission for the benefit of the proviso to sec. 201(1), which was not objected by the Ld D.R. The proviso exempts the assessee from default if certain conditions are met, including the recipient declaring the sum as income and paying due taxes. The Ld A.R assured that the necessary certificate from an accountant would be submitted to fulfill the proviso requirements.

The Appellate Tribunal accepted the alternative contention of the assessee in the interest of natural justice but directed verification by the AO. The order of the Ld CIT(A) was set aside, and the alternative contention was restored for examination by the AO. The main grounds of appeal were not adjudicated due to the acceptance of the alternative contention. The AO was instructed to make a decision after providing a hearing to the assessee and in compliance with the law.

Ultimately, all the appeals of the assessee were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeals were allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15th July 2022.