9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2785 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - CIT(A) held that the definition of goods carriage as provided in section 44AE(7) also applicable u/s 194C(6) since the payment have been made to the agencies not to persons who plied the trucks - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has correctly observed that the inference drawn by the AO that for the purpose of claiming the benefit of sub section (6) of section 194C the assessee is required to satisfy the ownership criteria mentioned in Explanation (b) below section 44AE(7) is not correct. Reference of Explanation to section 44AE(7) in section 194C is only in the context of definition of goods carriage . Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 44AE(7) defines goods carriage and clause (b) defines deemed ownership . CIT(A) has correctly held that clause (a) is applicable to both sections i.e. section 194C and 44 AE clause (b) is applicable only to section 44AE since for the benefit of presumptive taxation the assessee should not own more than ten goods carriages. Assessee is not required to satisfy the ownership criteria as mentioned in clause (b) of Explanation to section 44AE (7). On a perusal of section 194C (6) read with Explanation (II) to section 194C it is crystal clear that the transport contractor is not required to be the owner of goods carriage for applicability of section 194C(6) - At this stage we may observe here that an amendment has been made vide Finance Act 2015 in section 194C (6) wherein it is specifically stated that w.e.f. 1.6.2015 the benefit of non deduction of tax on payment made to transport contractors would be applicable only if the transport contractor owns ten or less goods carriages at any time of the previous year and a declaration to this effect is furnished. Legislature has intentionally inserted the ownership condition for claiming the benefit of non deduction of tax which was not existing in the erstwhile section 194C(6) - Assessee (Person responsible) cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax on the payments made to the Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative Society thus we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the same. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the definition of 'goods carriage' under Section 44AE(7) to Section 194C(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Eligibility for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6). 3. Treatment of the assessee as 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS. 4. Dismissal of Cross Objections by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the definition of 'goods carriage' under Section 44AE(7) to Section 194C(6): The primary issue in both appeals (ITA No. 651/Chd/2015 and ITA No. 652/Chd/2015) was whether the definition of 'goods carriage' as provided in Section 44AE(7) is also applicable under Section 194C(6). The Assessing Officer argued that for claiming the benefit of non-deduction of tax at source, the transport contractor must satisfy the ownership criteria mentioned in Explanation (b) below Section 44AE(7). However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that only the definition of 'goods carriage' in clause (a) of Explanation to Section 44AE(7) is relevant for Section 194C, and not the ownership criteria in clause (b). The Tribunal concluded that the reference to Explanation to Section 44AE(7) in Section 194C is solely for defining 'goods carriage' and not for imposing ownership conditions. 2. Eligibility for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6): The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6). The conditions include: - The contractor must be engaged in the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages. - The contractor should furnish its PAN to the deductor. - The deductor must furnish details of payments to the contractor to the Income Tax Authorities. - The 'goods carriage' must meet the definition in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal found that the Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. was engaged in the business of plying, hiring, and leasing goods carriages, had furnished its PAN, and the assessee had provided the required details to the authorities. 3. Treatment of the assessee as 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS: The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as 'assessee in default' for not deducting tax on payments made to the transport society, creating a demand under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). However, the CIT(A) deleted this demand, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal agreed that the transport contractor did not need to own the goods carriages to claim the benefit under Section 194C(6) and that the assessee was not liable for TDS on payments made to the transport society. 4. Dismissal of Cross Objections by the assessee: In both appeals, the assessee's counsel did not press for the grounds raised in the Cross Objections (C.O. No. 33/Chd/2015 and C.O. No. 34/Chd/2015). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objections as not pressed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 194C(6) and was not 'assessee in default' under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The Tribunal clarified that the ownership criteria in Explanation (b) to Section 44AE(7) do not apply to Section 194C(6).
|
