Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”
Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
ITO(TDS) 2(3) Meta Copper and Alloys Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 36/37 Mittal Chambers, Pin- Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACM7357B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri PranayLodha, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri T. A. Khan, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20/07/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 03/08/2018 : Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the assesseeis against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 14, Mumbai dated 13.03.14 for AY 2007-08. Meta Copper and Alloys Ltd 2. The brief facts of the case are thatassessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of non-ferrous metal alloys. A survey action u/s 133A of I.T. Act was conducted at the premises of assessee on 31.01.07. During the course of survey action, statement on oath of Shri Vinod Vora, CFO of the assessee company was recorded. Subsequently, during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, certain details were called for by the AO and the same were furnished by the assessee. After appreciating the details, it was held that the assessee had failed to deduct tax correctly on hire charges as required u/s 194I of the I.T. Act. Hence the assessee was held deemed to be an ‘Assessee in default’ for its failure to deduct tax at source vide order dated 30.03.10 passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of I.T. Act.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, dismissedthe appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
Meta Copper and Alloys Ltd 3. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO for treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for no/short withholding tax from hire charges paid for car, buses, JCB, etc u/s 194I of the I.t. Act.
At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as were raised before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee had not made any payment for use of any particular motor car, but for the facility of transport from one place to another and the rates are fixed for a particular vehicle, distance and timings. It was further submitted that assessee had hired the cars and equipments which were owned/operated and maintained by contractors and the assessee paid only hire charges in respect of such vehicles, however all other expenses relating to vehicle maintenance, driver salary, etc, were borne by the contractor.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities.