TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. The company has deducted TDS for all the payments made to the assessee. Therefore, it is clearly established that the assessee is responsible for the entire transportation job assigned by the company to the assessee - nothing on record to show that the assessee had sub-let his work to other truck owners - in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3167/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JJ. Appellant by Shri J. P. Shah, AR Respondent by Shri D. V. Singh, DR O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: The assessee has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A)-IV, Baroda in appeal No.CAB/IV-N-227/2010-11 dated 20-10-2010, for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 40(a) (ia) will not apply because the above is not an amount which is payable to the creditors as contractor for carrying out any work of the assessee; the amounts are payable by the company to the transport operators. 5. The C. I. T. (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. The C. I. T. (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Though the assessee has raised six grounds in his appeal, grounds No.1 to 4 relates to two issues being reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which is not pressed and addition made for non-deduction of tax u/s 194C of the Act for Rs.14,56,138/-. The fifth ground relates to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., had paid an aggregate amount of Rs.80,64,855/- to the assessee during the year under consideration for which the Company duly deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,80,671/-. On further scrutiny of the accounts, the learned AO observed that out of the total sundry creditors of Rs.15,80,362/- as on 31-03-2006 in 19 instances, sundry creditors was more than Rs.20,000/- and the aggregate liability of all these 19 creditors amounted to Rs.14,56,138/-. Therefore the Ld.AO opined that the assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s 194C of the Act on the amount credited to all the 19 creditors aggregating to Rs.14,56,138/-. However, it was found by the learned AO that the assessee had failed to do so. The learned AO subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- being sundry creditors for non-contractual payments was remitted back to the file of the learned AO with similar directions. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.8,77,213/- u/s 40 (a) (ia) of the Act being payment made by the assessee to the truck owners for sub-contracting transportation work. 5. The assessee is now, in appeal before us aggrieved of the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned AR submitted before us that the assessee had undertaken contract from M/s. Hindustan Co-co- Cola Breweries Pvt. Ltd., for transportation of their products. It was further submitted that the assessee complied with the contractual obligations by transporting the products of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n job assigned by the company to the assessee. In order to comply with the assignment, the assessee had hired vehicles from the market. There is nothing on record before us to show that the assessee had sub-let his work to other truck owners. After obtaining the payments from the company, the assessee had paid hire charges to the owners of the trucks from whom he had hired the trucks retaining a portion of the same for his job of execution of the work. Thus, from the facts available before us it can be construed that the assessee had hired the trucks along with drivers and executed the work himself. In such case the provisions of section 194C of the Act will not be attracted. We place reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Poom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
