CIT (TDS) CHANDIGARH vs. GENERAL MANAGER, HRY. ROADWAYS HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/18/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093086201005 December 2015Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeals. The Court referred to its own previous decision in ITA No. 21 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar) and connected cases, decided on 29.4.2010. In that decision, the Court had held that there was no contract between Haryana Roadways and Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited for carrying out any work, as Haryana Roadways had not purchased any bus chassis. The transaction was considered a simple case of supply of buses by the Engineering Corporation to Haryana Roadways, which was liable to Sales Tax and VAT. The Court found that Section 194C(1) of the Act, which pertains to payments for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract, was not applicable as there was no such contract. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose. The High Court found no merit in the present appeals and dismissed them.

What were the facts?

The revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh, filed an appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order. The ITAT had upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order, which deleted a demand raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had found the assessee, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, in default for failing to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act on payments of Rs. 1,96,03,989/- made to Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd. for fabrication of bus bodies during the financial year 2005-06, relevant to assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A) and the ITAT had relied on previous orders of the Tribunal and this High Court in similar cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the demand created by the AO under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as per Section 194C of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the contract was for the supply of goods and not a works contract, ignoring the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's contentions. However, the ITAT and CIT(A) orders, which were upheld, indicate that the assessee argued the transaction was a supply of goods, not a works contract, and therefore, Section 194C was not applicable. The assessee relied on previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act on payments made for fabrication of bus bodies, which constituted a works contract.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 18 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.12.2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh ....Appellant. Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar ...Respondent.

1.

Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 18 and 20 of 2010 as according to learned counsel for the parties, common questions of law and facts are involved in the appeals. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 18 of 2010. 2. ITA No. 18 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 869/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.01.07 10:16 authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), deleting the demand created by the A.O. u/s 201(1) and 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that contract was for supply of goods and not a case of executing works contract ignoring the provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

3.

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. During the year in question, the Income Tax Officer (TDS) had noticed that the assessee had entered into a contract with Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd. for fabrication of bodies of buses and had failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act. The assessee had paid an amount of ` 1,96,03,989/- for the Financial Year 2005-06 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 as fabrication charges without deducting tax at source at the rate of 2% plus cess under Section 194C of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) vide order dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure A-1) under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act finding the assessee in default qua tax deductible, created a demand of ` 5,67,490/- for the financial year 2005-06 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”]. The GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.01.07 10:16 authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -3- CIT(A) vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure A-2) allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal dated 22.7.2008 (ITA Nos. 1001 and 1002/CHD/2007) for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and its own order dated 21.10.2008 (ITA Nos. 79 and 80/RTK/08-09) in the case of G.M. Haryana Roadways, Jhajjar. Against the order, Annexure A-2, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.5.2009 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal of the revenue following its own order dated 22.7.2008 (ITA Nos. 1001 and 1002/CHD/2007) for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-

06.

Hence, the present appeals by the revenue.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

The aforesaid issue in the case of the assessee itself came up before this Court ITA No. 21 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar) and other connected cases decided on 29.4.2010, wherein this Court had held that there was no question of any contract between Haryana Roadways through its Transport Commissioner and Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited when the Haryana Roadways had not purchased any bus chassis. The case being a simple case of supply of buses by the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited to the Haryana Roadways, was liable to Sales Tax and VAT. This Court had recorded as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper books with their able assistance we are of the considered view that there is no merit in these appeals warranting their admission and the same are liable to be dismissed. From the categorical GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.01.07 10:16 authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -4- findings, it is evident that Haryana Roadways did not purchase any bus chassis and, therefore, there was no question of any contract between Haryana Roadways through its Transport Commissioner and Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited. It is a simple case of supply of buses by the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited to the Haryana Roadways. The supply of buses as such has been subjected to charge of Sales Tax and VAT. We may examine Section 194C(1) of the Act, which envisages payment of any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and Central or State Government etc. In the present case there is no such contract for carrying out any contract nor the expression 'Contractor' could be imputed to any one of the parties. Therefore, no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court. These appeals are wholly without merit and the same are dismissed.”

6.

In view of the above, substantial questions of law as claimed in these appeals are answered accordingly. Consequently, finding no merit in both the appeals, the same are also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 5, 2015 (RAMENDRA JAIN) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.01.07 10:16 authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 194C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →