M/S. BIR BHOLA TRUCK UNION,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

At the very outset, it was submitted by the assessee’s counsel, Sh. Jain, that the issues arising in the instant appeal are the same as stand decided by the Tribunal per its decision in Giddarbaha Janta Truck Union v. Asstt. CIT (in ITA No. 660/Asr/2013, dated 28.08.2018), placing a copy of the same on record. The appellant in that case had raised the issue of mutuality as well as, in the alternative, the quantification of the income, i.e., where the surplus arising to the assessee is

I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The assessee in the instant case, as in Giddarbaha Janta Truck Union (supra), is an Association of Persons (AOP), formed by individuals owning one or more trucks. It enters into contracts for transportation of goods, being admittedly formed to provide optimum gain for its members, the truck owners, by avoiding internal competition between them as well as securing collective bargaining. The assessee’s case, which did not find favour with the Revenue, is that entire transportation charges on the basis of the goods receipt notes (GRNs) are passed on to the members, so that no income arises to it. The same has accordingly been assessed at 2% of the contract receipt. The tribunal in Giddarbaha Janta Truck Union (supra), again, did not accept the assessee’s claim of no income having arisen to it as the entire receipt, including tax deducted at source – which is at 2%, is passed on to the truck owners. TDS had been deducted at the rate of 2% and, accordingly, the same, it opined, stands retained by the assessee-union. Allowing another 0.5% toward expenditure, the net profit was estimated at 1.50%. The tribunal noted several decisions by the tribunal, adopting different percentages, being relied upon by either side. In the present case, the assessee, not maintaining any books of account, has returned a net profit of Rs. 1,00,939 even as its gross contract receipt is at Rs. 369.08 lacs. It is not clear if the same includes any other income, i.e., besides contract receipt, even as it does not appear to be so as the Assessing Officer has assessed the income by estimating it, applying a rate. No

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on April 29, 2019 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 29.04.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: Bir Bhola Truck Union, Malout Road, Bathinda (2) The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bathinda (3) The CIT(Appeals), Bathinda (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T