Amounts paid to consultants not disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) where tax deducted under section 192, not 194J

ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that amounts paid to consultants engaged by a partnership firm of chartered accountants could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) where tax was in fact deducted under section 192, even if tax should have been deducted under section 194J. The Tribunal found no employee-employer relationship but ruled section 40(a)(ia) applies only to non-deduction, not to a lesser or incorrect mode of deduction, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interpretation of provisions of section 194J and section 40(a)(ia) regarding payment made to consultants engaged by a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Mumbai regarding the treatment of payments made to consultants engaged by a Chartered Accountants' firm. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) considered the payments to be in the nature of fees for professional services, attracting provisions of section 194J. The assessee contended that the consultants were employees of the firm, working full-time with benefits, and tax was deducted under section 192. The A.O. concluded there was no employee-employer relationship based on agreements, leading to disallowance of the claimed amount under section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, emphasizing the genuineness of payments and the tax deductions made by the appellant. The CIT(A) suggested that even if payments were considered under section 194J, the tax already deducted could have been adjusted, making disallowance unjustifiable.

Upon hearing arguments and examining records, it was found that the assessee had employed 18 consultants under fixed agreements, working full-time without profit-sharing. The consultants were prohibited from taking private assignments and had tax deducted under section 192, accepted as salary payments in their individual assessments. The total amount paid to consultants was Rs. 26,75,535, indicating an employment relationship rather than consultancy. As tax was deducted under section 192, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) did not apply for lesser deductions. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's contention of disallowing the payments under section 194J lacked merit, confirming the CIT(A)'s order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the employment nature of the consultants, the genuineness of payments, and the tax deductions made under section 192, rendering the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) unwarranted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the CIT(A).

---