9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had, inter alia, taken the ground that the addition of Rs. 8,51,43,744/- by invoking the provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was erroneous. 2. The assessee has four trucks and is in the business of transporting goods. He also carries on the business of a commission agent by arranging for transportation of goods through other transporters. Initially, the assessee filed a return on 31.10.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,57,684/-. The return was picked up on scrutiny and a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was required to file a revised profit and loss acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned, there is no contract of carriage between the assessee or any other person. The contract is between the clients and the lorry owners/ transporters, in which the assessee only acts as a facilitator or as an intermediary. This stand has been taken by the assessee right from the stage of the assessment up to the Tribunal. 5. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer as also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not agree with this contention of the assessee and both of them held that the assessee was not an intermediary or a facilitator but, there was a privity of contract between the assessee and the clients for carriage of goods. The Tribunal, however, has reversed this finding by holding that the assessee had no p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,100/- from the company. According to us, it cannot be said that assessee really entered into the contract of transportation of goods. He merely acted as an intermediary. Thus, the facts seem to be similar to the facts in the case of Grewal Brothers (supra) although the provisions of Partnership Act make the position of law somewhat messy. In the case of Cargo Linkers, the assessee acted as an intermediary between the exports and the airlines. It received the amount from the exporter and handed over the same to the airline, who paid commission. These facts are also nearer to the facts of the case at hand. Accordingly, following this decision, it is held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. In view thereof, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee charged commission from the airlines. According to the Assessing Officer, in that case, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the payments made to the airlines. As can be noticed, the factual position is somewhat similar to the facts of the present case. Here also, the assessee collects freight charges from the clients who intended to transport their goods through separate transporters. The entire amount collected from the clients is paid to the transporters after deducting commission from the said amount. 8. In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the 'person responsible' for making payment in terms of Section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
