Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 754 - HC - Income TaxTDS on entire amounts paid to the agent - whether Tribunal committed an error in upholding the decision of the First Appellate Authority and thereby affirming the finding of the Assessing Officer that tax had to be deducted at source even in respect of reimbursements which had been incurred by the agent? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has approved the factual finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority stating that there is no proof that brokerage and freight charge by consignment agent from the assessee are not loaded with profit and if it had been a case of true reimbursement the consignment would have enclosed the bill drawn by its brokers and transporters and in that case the assessee could have decided the deductibility of TDS from such bills of brokers and transporters without depending on the consignment agent. Further, the First Appellate Authority has recorded that even after an opportunity was given during the appeal proceeding, the assessee could not establish their stand and, therefore, held that amounts of brokerage and freight can be paid by the assessee to consignment agent are the only available criteria to decide the deductibility of tax at source on the payment of brokerage and freight - the terms and conditions of the agreement of consignment sale was taken note of wherein it is stated that the consignment agent is required to remit the entire sale proceeds and depending on the maximum price realized or other such criteria the assessee will pay commission to the consignment agent. Further noting the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that deduction of tax at source under Section 194C is required to be made on “any sum paid” by the assessee to clearing and forwarding agent and it includes reimbursement of the expenditure. In this regard, the clarification issued by the CBDL was referred to. The decision in DLF Commercial Project Corporation [2015 (7) TMI 576 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which was rendered following the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 235 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] would be wholly applicable to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the Court had approved the concurrent finding rendered by the First Appellate Authority. The facts of the case on hand has been noted by the CIT(A), who has rendered a categorical finding that the assessee was unable to establish their stand in spite of opportunity granted to them at the appellate stage. Further, in CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. ltd. it has been held that law obliges only amounts which fulfilled the character of income to be subject to TDS. In the case before us, all the two Authorities and the Tribunal have concurrently held that the assessee was unable to produce any document to establish their stand. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act cannot be called upon to reexamine the facts or to re-appreciate the tenor and ambit of the document which was placed before the Assessing Officer, CITA and more importantly the Tribunal has noted that the assessee has failed to establish the reimbursement which was pleaded by producing document despite opportunity being given at the appellate stage. No substantial question of law.
|