ITO, TIRUNELVELI vs. S.KALAIARASAN, TIRUNELVELI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on lorry hire charges as he was not providing any sub-contract. The primary contractor was liable for TDS under Section 194C. Section 194-I was also not applicable for the relevant assessment year.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an order concerning disallowance of lorry hire charges. The assessee, a sub-contractor, had hired lorries for his work and paid hire charges.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on lorry hire charges paid for sub-contract work, and if Section 40(a)(ia) was applicable for disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Madurai, dated 26.06.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.
The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of lorry hire charges.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri S.
Kalaiarasan, the assessee himself was present before us. He filed an application saying that he is a pauper and person of without means, therefore, he prayed that the appeal may be heard and disposed of on merit.
In view of the above, we heard Ld. Departmental Representative on merit.
Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee hired lorries and paid hire charges.
According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is a sub-contractor and for carrying out the work as sub-contractor, he paid the hire charges.
Therefore, the sub-contractor is liable for deducting tax in respect of the payment made to lorry owners. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. D.R. clarified that on sub-contract, the assessee has to deduct tax. The Ld. D.R. has also further clarified that the lorry was hired by the assessee for carrying out his sub-contract work.
We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee was given sub-contract. The assessee appears to have taken the work on sub-contract which involved mining / overhead removal and transportation of the mined material from another company and received payment as a sub-contractor. Therefore, the assessee has not given any sub-contract to anyone. The assessee has taken up the work from a contractor for carrying out his work. For carrying out the work assigned to him, the assessee hired lorry and paid hire charges. Therefore, the main contractor who assigned work to the assessee is liable for taking tax at source under Section 194C of the Act. As far as the assessee is concerned, the provisions of Section 194C of the Act is not applicable in respect of the payment made to lorry owners. The material available on record clearly establishes that the assessee has not given any work to anyone either on sub- contract or otherwise. While carrying out the sub-contract work, the assessee hired lorry and paid lorry hire charges. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 194C is not applicable at all.
Now the question arises for consideration is whether the hire charges would attract deduction of tax? Section 194-I of the Act requires the assessee to deduct tax in respect of hire charges. However, Section 194-I is not applicable during the year under consideration. Therefore, during the year under consideration, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax in respect of hire charges paid to lorry owners for hiring lorries.
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 4th March, 2016 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026