9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of expenditure of transport and carting expenses at ₹ 8,87,012/- for non-deduction of TDS in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised the following effective ground No.1-8:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the order of the learned A.O. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant there is no oral or written contract and as such Sec. 194C is not applicable and therefore Sec.40(a)(ia) applied and carting expenditure of ₹ 8,87,012/- disallowed by the learned A.O and confirmed by CIT(A) is not legal and valid i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault of Sec. 207 to 219 of the I.T. Act 1961. 3. The brief facts leading to the above issue are that the return of income was field on 14-10-2005 declaring total income at ₹ 11,457/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had paid the following amounts for transportation on goods. Name of the Transporter Payment (in Rs) Whether TDFS deducted u/s 194C of the Act. Bharat Road Line 3,82,824/- Nil Arvind Roadways 32,811/- Nil Sharma Roadways 4,42,456/- Nil Roadco (India) Corpt. 82,92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant is transporting goods from Calcutta to Valasan. Transportation of goods takes place through the four parties i.e. Bharat Road Line, Calcutta, Roadco 9India) Corporation, Kolkota, Arvind Roadways, Siliguri and Sharma Roadways, Siliguri. It is only through these transporters that he goods are transported from Kolkata to Valasana. Therefore, it is established that the assessee has a contract be it oral with the above four parties. Section 194C states that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor for carrying out any work including supplying of labour in pursuance of a contract shall at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor, or at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies who have been transporting goods is owning any truck and there is no oral or written contract with them and if a contract existed, then the freight at different rates would not have been paid. We further find that Tribunal in assessee s sister concern s case in ITA No.3422/Ahd/2008 dated 18-09-2009 in the case of M/s Pramukh Jute Traders v. ITO Ward-2, Anand, wherein vide para-3 has allowed the claim of assessee, which is being reproduced as under:- 3. It is the contention of the assessee that the transporters were engaged by agents in Calcutta and the assessee was merely paying the transport charges to them and that there was no transport contract between the assessee and the transporters named above. It was therefore submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. United Rice Land Limited dated 12-45-2008 in IT Appeal No.638 of 2007 (copy filed at page 41 of the paper book) support the assessee s case. In these circumstances we hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under Section 194C from the transport charges. Consequently, section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. The transport charges of ₹ 1,72,200/- is accordingly, directed to be allowed. The transport charges of ₹ 1,72,200/- is accordingly directed to be allowed. The grounds are allowed. We find that facts are exactly similar in the present case, what was before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Pramukkh Jute Traders (supra). Respectfully following the same, we allow the claim of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
