Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order, dismisses Revenue's appeal on tax deduction; cites Ahaar Consumer case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Relying on the Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. case, it found that Section 194C and Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not applicable to the situation. The decision was based on the nature of the transaction as an exchange rather than a works contract, leading to the rejection of the tax demand for non/short deduction of tax.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194C on work carried out by millers.
2. Tax demand due to non/short deduction of tax under Section 201(1)/201(1A).
3. Comparison with the case of Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
4. Payment consideration for services rendered.
5. Adequacy of milling charges paid in cash.
6. Applicability of TDS provisions on non-cash payments as per Supreme Court judgment.
7. Accounting for the selling price of by-products retained by millers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 194C on Work Carried Out by Millers:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the legal position that Section 194C is applicable to the work carried out by millers under contract with the procurement agency/assessee. However, the Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd., where it was determined that the provisions of Section 194C did not apply to similar circumstances, as the transaction was considered an exchange and not a works contract.

2. Tax Demand Due to Non/Short Deduction of Tax under Section 201(1)/201(1A):
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the tax demand created due to non/short deduction of tax under Section 201(1)/201(1A). The Tribunal, however, upheld that the assessee was not liable for TDS on the value of by-products retained by the miller, as per the precedent set by the Delhi Bench in the Ahaar case.

3. Comparison with the Case of Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly linked the present case with Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd., as the latter did not involve payment for services rendered. The Tribunal found that the facts were indeed similar, and thus, the decision in the Ahaar case was applicable.

4. Payment Consideration for Services Rendered:
The Revenue asserted that the CIT(A) erred in linking the judgment of the Ahaar case with the present case, as the execution of work upon supplied material was in lieu of payments on which TDS was deducted. The Tribunal reiterated that the transaction was an exchange of commodities and not a payment for services, aligning with the Ahaar case decision.

5. Adequacy of Milling Charges Paid in Cash:
The Revenue claimed that the milling charges paid in cash were not adequate remuneration for the services obtained under the contract. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deducted TDS on the milling charges paid and was not obliged to make any payment on the value of the by-products retained by the miller.

6. Applicability of TDS Provisions on Non-Cash Payments as per Supreme Court Judgment:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which upheld the applicability of TDS provisions even if the payment was not in cash. The Tribunal, however, found that the provisions of Section 194C and Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not applicable in this case, as it was an exchange transaction.

7. Accounting for the Selling Price of By-Products Retained by Millers:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand without verifying if the selling price of the by-products retained by the millers was accounted for in their books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was not liable for TDS on the by-products retained by the millers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the precedent set by the Delhi Bench in the Ahaar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. case, determining that the provisions of Section 194C and Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

---