9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received and paid in contrast to the earnings of the assessee, analyzed in the background of the observations of CIT(A) that the assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business,but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. The assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions u/s 194C have no application. No coming to the contention of the assessee that the ad hoc addition on estimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/-after adjusting the brought forward losses for the financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10 of ₹ 64,686/-. During scrutiny proceedings, learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee debited to its profit and loss a sum of ₹ 2,13,03,542/-towards amountfreight paid. The auditor s report was to the effect that the TDS has not been directed from the freight paid neither any declaration for having one or twotrucks and aggregate of the amount of such sums credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed ₹ 50,000/- nor the PAN numbers of truck owners were obtained. When called upon to explain, assessee submitted that individual truck was settled from market according to the availability of truck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 crores under section 194C of the Act. 5. Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal. It is the argument of Ld. AR that in this case the assessee is a facilitator and provider of transport and a does not own even a single vehicle for transport. Assessee only arranges the vehicles for the people who transport the goods and this fact is evident from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charges etc have been debited to the profit and loss account of the assessee. Ld. AR submits that it is not a case where the assessee renders any services to the transporters nor engages any transporter f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges of ₹ 2,13,03,542/- making and earning of ₹ 2,60,083/- which roughly constitutes 1.15%. Assessee furnished the details of freight received and freight paid. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee also produced the party wise details of freight along with the PAN numbers. 9. All through the proceedings it is the case of the assessee is that there is no contract between himself and the vehicle owners for transportation of goods but when he secures an order for transport of goods, he was searching for the individual truck in the market and depending upon the availability of the truck and the requirement of the client, at a settled freight, the freight was paid not more than ₹ 20,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract for carrying goods, he cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source under section 194C . In this matter the matching of the freight received and freight paid but for the difference of 1.15% which accounts for the commission of the assessee, indicates that the assessee is nothing but an intermediary between the clients and the vehicle owners/operators and mainly facilitates the contract for carrying goods. 12. Having regard to the volumes of the freight received and paid in contrast to the earnings of the assessee, analyzed in the background of the observations of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
