9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rkey, J.M. And Dr. A. L. Saini, A.M. Assessee by : Shri: Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR Department by: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 2, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 1901/CIT(A)-2/14-15, dated 04-07-2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ), dated 06-01-2015. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:- 1. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 was not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing a sum of ₹ 18,16,096/-, under section 40(a)(ia), being amount paid to transporters on account of handling and warehouse collection charges in addition to freight on the ground that tax was not deducted at source from such payments u/s 194C of the Act. 2. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has also failed to appreciate the fact that the handling and warehouse collection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g vehicles for movement of goods is not eligible to TDS, subject to the condition that the transporter has furnished his PAN. Hence, there was no requirement for deduction of tax at source from such amounts credited and paid U/s 194C of the Act. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and the amount of ₹ 18,16,096/-, disallowed U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the reason that TDS was not deducted U/s 194C of the Act 4. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that these are merely reimbursement of expenses, therefore, the TDS provisions do not apply. That is, if the agent paid TDS and the assessee just reimburses the same, in that situation there is no need to deduct TDS. In asssessee`s case, there is no contractual obligation. That is, there is no contract between the assessee and the person to whom the assessee is making payment. The assessee is merely reimbursing the expenses to the agent. The ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated in respect of octroi charges that freight is less than ₹ 12,622/- and it does not attract TDS in any case. For this he referred to assessee's paper book wherein details of octroi charges and other charges paid to M/s. Inland Transport Pvt. Ltd. are detailed out as under:- Date Freight Ch. Oct.Ch OS.Ch Del.Ch Misc.ch incl unloading Chgs E.Cess Total 23/7/2004 523.00 597.00 30.00 5.00 30.00 - 1,185.00 6/8/2004 573.00 1,265.00 67.00 5.00 1,537.00 - 3,447.00 19/8/2004 978.00 2,705.00 137.00 5.00 1,538.00 - 5,363.00 20/8/2004 388.00 806.00 41.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40 62, 285.70 Similarly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that service charges paid to J. S. Clearing Services includes custom duty, port charges, stamp duty charges, bondage charges, oct. charges apart from payment of rent and removal documentation fee and document processing fee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this can be verified from copies of bills of freight charges and copies of bills of clearing service charges. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that reimbursement expenses and custom duty payments by agent for and on behalf of the assessee cannot be covered under the TDS provisions. Hence, these expenses are not liable to TDS and the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not applicable. For this, he relied on the decision in the case of ACIT V. Grandprix Fab. (P) Ltd,. (2010) 128 TTJ 60 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal vide para 16 has held as under: 16. In respect of the payment towards agency charges amounting to Rs.l,01,219,the assesee has deducted tax amounting to ₹ 2,094 at source, and the said payment has not been disallowed by the A. O. The other two payments are towards payment of customs duty, and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
