Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.04.2023, passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar in DIN & Document No.ITBA/APL/S/91/2023-24/1051928453(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in construction business has purchased cement and bricks from OCL India Ltd. and Shivkashi Enterprises, respectively. It was submitted that the purchases were on FOR sales meaning that the bill, purchase cost included the cost of transportation. It was the submission that for the purpose of billing the supplier had shown freight separately but the assessee has paid consolidated amount for the purchase of the material. The assessee has not undertaken the transportation of the cement or bricks on its own. It AO on the ground that the assessee has shown the transportation cost as per the bills separately in its account, had held that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act and consequently levied a liability u/s.201 of the Act. It was the submission that this liability was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR placed before us a copies of the bill for the purchases, which are as follows :-
It was the submission that the bills specifically showed that the inclusive term for the sales was freight paid (FOR) sales. It was the submission that the assessee has not paid any separate transportation charges.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has shown the transportation charges separately in its books of accounts and, therefore, the assessee should have deducted TDS on such transportation charges u/s.194C of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the invoice cum dispatch challan, extracted above, clearly shows that the inclusive terms for the sale of the cement was clearly FOR sales. In FOR sales, the transportation cost is also included in the cost of the material sold. Just because the seller has separated the freight charges from the selling price in its bill for the purpose of computing VAT and Entry Tax as also Excise Duty, it cannot be held that the assessee has paid transportation cost separately. A perusal of the ledger of the assessee also shows that consolidated payments have been made by the assessee. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee is not liable for deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act on the said transportation charges. Thus, the levy of liability u/s.201 of the Act and interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2024.