DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB AGRO FOOD GRAINS CORP. LTD., SANGRUR

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the separate orders dated 27.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2, In this appeal, the Revenue has taken the following grounds:- (i) Has the Ld. CIT (A) not erred in ignoring the legal position that the provisions of section 194C are squarely applicable on the work carried out by the millers who are under contract with the procurement agency/assessee ? (ii) Has the Ld. CIT(A) not erred in not upholding the Tax demand created on account of non / short deduction of tax u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee deductor applied provisions of section 194C on the cash part of the payments but not on the payments but not on the payments which were made in kind?

M/S Punjab agro Food grains Corporation Ltd.., Sangrur • (iii) Has the Ld. CIT(A) not erred in linking the facts of present case with the case of Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble ITAT, Bench 'A', New Delhi finds that - ' It is just an exchange and barter of one commodity against the other and the whole contract cannot be termed as works contract.' (iv) Has the Ld.CIT(A) not erred in linking the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Bench 'A', New Delhi in the case of M/s Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd., with the facts of the present case when the case of M/s Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd,, did not involve any payment of consideration for the services rendered whereas in the present case execution of work upon supplied material is in lieu of payments on which TDS has also been deducted by the assessee? (v) Has the Ld.CIT(A) not erred in holding that the assessee has not paid any sum except milling charges @Rs,15/- per quintal) to the millers given that the milling charges paid in cash are not adequate remuneration for the services obtained under contract, and that the millers have complete control over the byproduct retained by them which should thus constitute income of the recipient as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 07.07.2010 ?

(vi) Has the Ld.CIT(A) not erred in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 07.07.2010, wherein the Hon'ble Court has upheld the applicable of TDS provisions even if the payment made is not in cash ?

to the order dated 30.10.2018 passed on the issue in the group cases with a lead case ‘ITO (TDS) Vs. The Distt. Manager, M/s Punjab Warehousing

Corporation, Sirhind & others’ in ITA Nos. 1309 & 1310/Chd/2016 and has stated that the issue raised is squarely covered by the aforesaid

decision of the Tribunal.

officer.

M/S Punjab agro Food grains Corporation Ltd.., Sangrur

(supra) in the group cases with a lead case in ITA Nos. 1309 &

1310/Chd/2016, relied upon by the assessee, has recently been delivered

by this Bench of the Tribunal (Bench consisted by both of us), hence,

following the principle of consistency, the present appeals of the Revenue

are decided accordingly and issue is decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the bye-products

of paddy given to the millers for milling.

Both the appeals of the Revenue are therefore, dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.11.2018 (अ"नपूणा" गु"ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग" / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद"य/ Accountant Member "या"यक सद"य/ Judicial Member Dated : 20.11.2018 “आर.के.”

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/