TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, there is no agreement for carrying out any work by the owner to the hirer. There is no scope in such case for application of Sec.194C which is applicable to payments to transporter for carrying of goods. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.3023/Ahd/2008 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2012 - SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM) For the Appellant : Mrs. Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Respondent :Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr. DR O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 22nd July, 2008 for assessment year 2005-06 in Appeal No. CIT(A)- XV/DCIT/Wd.9/135/07-08, on the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... every occasion was less than ₹ 20,000/-, the aggregate payments exceeded ₹ 50,000/- in several cases and that the assessee failed to pay TDS on a total amount of ₹ 35,30,310/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that for making delivery of goods of the customers, employees of the assessee from various branches made contact to local drivers or agents and for this services no separate agreement was entered and payments were made to the respective drivers of the trucks. It was also submitted that no payment has been made to Crown Roadways or Shree Shankar Road Lines and that in view of this each payment is out side the provisions of the IT Act and hence no tax was deducted by the assessee on such payments. The assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either trucks were different or truck drivers were different. It was merely to keep reference as to through whom contact was made, the name was written and that neither any case no payment was made to Crown Roadways or Shree Shankar Roadlines nor any agreement was executed for each lorry hire challan which was a separate contract. It was under this facts and modus operandi pleaded that each payment was outside the purview of the provisions of the IT Act and hence, no tax was deducted at source. The learned CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee held that the assessee did not deduct any TDS on fright expenses of ₹ 7,57,740/- and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hired the vehicles in order to transport the goods of its clients. The assessee apparently is a transport contractor who transports the goods of its clients to the destination preferred by the clients. In order to carry out such work the assessee engages trucks of various other organizations and truck owners by hiring of the vehicles along with the infrastructure. Thus, the work of transportation has been carried out by the assessee and not by the owners of the trucks. The owners of the trucks had only hired their vehicles to the assessee by receiving hire charges while as the work of transportation has been carried on by the assessee. The risk and reward for the performance of the job lies with the assessee and not with the owners of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
