TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act where it acted as a facilitator or intermediary between client and truck owner and that there was no privity of contract between assessee and client for carriage of goods. Therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1462/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate And Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Advocate For The Respondent : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER N. S. SAINI AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2016 of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41 (Del.) where it was held that the assessee filed its return after five months and nearly after a period of four years and appealed for condonation of delay in filing the return before the CBDT for the sole reason of illness of auditor. The same cannot be condoned for want of details of illness and proof namely Doctors prescription. He submitted that in the instant case also the assessee has not shown the sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, the delay should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. In the rejoinder of the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed prescription of Doctor as evidence of illness of the counsel of the assessee and therefore, the decision of Hon ble Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 persons aggregating ₹ 18,00,100/- without deducting TDS u/s 194C. Therefore, he disallowed the deduction for the same in computing the income of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that the assessee has assessment proceedings proximately 30 trucks owned by him for doing the transportation business. In order to meet extra needs of truck the assessee took trucks on hire for transportation of goods as and when the need arises. Thus, there is no written or oral contract between the assessee and the transporter hence, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities. 12. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case the assessee is in the business of transportation of goods. It has 30 numbers of owned trucks and in case of any of extra trucks the assessee hires the same as and when required. The assessee during the year made payment of ₹ 18,00,100/-to the persons from whom the trucks were hired. The contention of he was that he was an intermediary between the transporters of goods and the parties who wanted their goods to be transported. He thus facilitated the persons who wanted the goods to be transported and thus there was no privity of contract between the assessee and truck owners and hence h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
