9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reads as under : "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, on facts as well as in law, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,71,922 made by the Assessing Officer by making disallow ance of transportation charges etc., in view of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee did not deduct tax under the provision of section 194C(2) of the Income-tax Act." 3. The learned authorised representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case relating to the assessment year 2006-07 and also the ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted the addition following the order of the Tribunal. 6. We find that the identical issue arose before the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in I. T. A. No. 816/Chd/2009 relating to the assessment year 2006-07 and vide order dated February 24, 2010, the Tribunal in turn following the ratio laid down in the assessee's own case in I. T. A. No. 761/ Chd/2009 held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 761/Chd/2009 were as under: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trucks. During the year under consideration, the assessee had made payment of Rs. 79,77,384 to 174 transporters and as per the details filed before the authorities below, the truck number of vehicles owned by the truck operators and the payment being made to them was detailed. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 63,10,197 being sub-contractual payments made by the assessee in excess of Rs. 50,000, in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9. We find that similar issue of payments to truck owners by the truck operators union arose before the hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sirmour Truck Operators Union I. T. A. No. 45 of 2006 [2010] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Mangu Transport Co-op. Society [2009] 31 DTR 49 (HP) against which special leave petition was dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court on January 17, 2011, being SLP (Civil) . . . /2011, CC 259/2011 CIT v. Ambuja D. Mangu Transp. Co-op. Society." 9. The hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sirmour Truck Operators Union [2010] 236 CTR (HP) 550 also held that the assessee- society which was created by the transporters themselves with a view to enter into contract with the company for transportation of goods and material, was nothing more than conglomeration of the truck operators themselves. It was further held that the members of the society were virtually owners of the society and though the two were separate juristic enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
