SHANTILAL JUHARMALJI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO- WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1311/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2023AY 2011-20125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had subsequently deducted and paid the TDS and filed a revised return, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the claim after verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of stainless steel utensils, debited transport charges to his profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer disallowed these charges for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of transport charges for non-deduction of TDS is justified when TDS was subsequently paid and a revised return was filed. Whether the assessee complied with the provisions of Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) regarding TDS on transport charges.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C(6),Section 194C(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Vyas, Ms. Indira Adakil
Pronounced: 28.08.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has challenged the ground that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity before the first appellate authority, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and had also challenged the disallowance of transport charges of Rs.2,70,048/- for non deduction of TDS u/s. 194C of the Act.

3.

The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of stainless steel utensils, household products and appliances to buyers within and outside India as a return of income dated 22.09.2010, declaring total income at Rs.11,24,290/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) made various additions and determined the total income at Rs.16,86,596/-.

4.

The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the addition/disallowance of transport charges of Rs.2,70,048/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act.

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order.

6.

The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before the A.O. and further the ld. AR stated that the assessee subsequently paid the TDS for the said amount. The ld. AR further stated that as the assessee has already paid the TDS amount due, the same should be allowed as deduction as claimed by the assessee. The ld. DR, on the other hand, controverted the said facts and stated that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained before the lower authorities as to why the TDS was not deducted and paid. The ld. DR further stated that the assessee’s contention that the TDS is not deductible for payments made where the deductee has furnished the PAN, is not acceptable contention.

The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. record. It is observed that the assessee has debited Rs.2,70,048/- to the profit and loss account towards transport charges to M/s. Sharma Transport Service and M/s. Delux Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. for transportation of goods during the year under consideration. The A.O. observed that the assessee has not deducted any TDS on the payments made to the said companies and the assessee contended that as the PAN of the transport company has been furnished, the assessee was on the belief that TDS was not to be deducted for the payments and relied on the provision of section 194C(6) of the Act. The A.O. disregarded the submission of the assessee for the reason that para 49.3 of the explanatory Circular for Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 has amended to exempt payment to transport operators from deducting TDS but subject to the condition that the deductors will be required to furnish the PAN details of the operators to the department in the prescribed format as per the conditions laid down u/s. 194C(7) of the Act. The A.O. further held that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant details in the prescribed form to the concerned authority, thereby failing to comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. The A.O. further held that non compliance of the provisions of sections 194(6) and 194(7) of the Act would attract the provision of section 194C(1). The A.O. invoked the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the impugned amount made to the transport agencies. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the A.O. It is observed that the aggregate amount of Rs.2,70,048/- paid as transportation charges to three parties namely M/s. Sharma Transport Service (Rs.2,42,164), Gawad Transport (Rs.6,000/-) and Delux Roadline Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.21,884/-) for which the assessee claims that since payment to two parties is less than Rs.30,000/-, the assessee is not entitled to deduct TDS as per the Transport Service, the assessee contended that it had furnished details of PAN to the Income Tax Department by filing revised TDS return in Form 26Q along with the PAN copy of M/s. Sharma Transport Service. The assessee contends that the delay was due to a bonafide reason as the assessee was not aware of the new requirement of the said provision. The assessee further contended that by oversight, the amended provision was not looked into.

9.

From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the assessee has already deducted and paid the said TDS amount and the revised return filed by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification of the facts of the payment made by the assessee. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. As we have decided the issue on the merits of the case, Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee requires no further adjudication and ground no. 3 is general in nature.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.08.2023

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →