ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs M/S HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Aastha Dhawan– Ld. AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal– Ld. DR, Shri Aastha Dhawan– Ld. AR

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17 arises out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority. However, the grievance is common and therefore, the appeals were hear together and are now being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. The revenue is aggrieved by the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of payments made by assessee to field agents since the assessee deducted tax at source u/s 194C as against the opinion of Ld. AO that the TDS should have been made at higher rate as prescribed u/s 194J.

The Ld. Counsel for assessee, at the outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s favor by series of decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2005-06 to 2014-15 and Ld. CIT(A) has merely followed the same. The copies of the orders have been placed on record. This fact remains uncontroverted before us. No distinction in facts could be demonstrated before us.

The facts in AY 2015-16 are that the assessee made payment to field agents for conducting research survey and data analysis & tabulation. The assessee deducted tax at source u/s 194C.However, Ld. AO opined that the said services would require use of highly professional personnel and would require technical staff to render the services. Therefore, tax was to be deducted at higher rates as prescribed for professional payments u/s 194J. Therefore, Ld. AO made disallowance of 30% against aggregate payment of Rs.48.12 Crores u/s 40(a)(ia) which resulted into disallowance of Rs.14.43 Crores in the hands of the assessee. The amount of disallowance in AY 2016-17 is Rs.14.13 Crores.

Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the issue was covered in assessee’s own case by various orders of the Tribunal and therefore, the disallowance was to be deleted. The coordinate bench in AY 2012-13, after considering the statutory provisions and various judicial pronouncements, held that the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) would

ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI