9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07 on 30.12.2006 declaring total income of Rs 3,48,305/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2008 and the total income was assessed at Rs 36,49,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 31.3.2009 partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is in now in appeal before us. The ground raised by the Assessee reads as under:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of transport and octroi charges amounting to Rs. 30,73,023/- by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C. 4. On verification of the Profit & Loss account, AO noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation is the service and freight is the payment for availing this service. This is an implicit contract. Thus service actually has been discharged by numerous trucks and their drivers but on behalf of the two transporters. Presence or absence of a commission agent, will not alter the character of the contract between the appellant and his transporters. There may not be a written contract. In this case contract is implicit. The transporter is entitled to freight charges if he transports certain goods to certain place for the appellant. The appellant has to make payment of the charges - cash, cheque, monthly or per trip are irrelevant as also who collects the payment on behalf of the transporter. The appellant's other argument that TDS is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them in the year also did not exceed Rs 50,000/- and on this ground also as per the provisions of s. 194C(5) of the Act the Assessee was not required to deduct TDS and for which he also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs United Rice Land Ltd (2008) 174 taxman 286 (P&H) and also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order. He thus submitted that while upholding the order of AO, CIT(A) has given no finding on the aforesaid submissions and therefore the matter may be remitted back to the file of CIT(A) with necessary directions. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us, Ld A.R apart from other argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
