TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the reopening of assessment under section 147 by the Assessing Officer and in further upholding the addition of Rs.14,56,138/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax under section 194C, which was a part of the credit entry of Rs.15,80,362/-. 2. The C. I. T. (Appeals) failed to comprehend the business of the assessee as mere agent working in transport business, in the course of which he will be collecting the payment from Hindustan Coca Cola Breweries Pvt. Ltd. and making the payment to the truck owners, in the process merely earning the commission; none the less being required to maintain accounts so that at all the times, he knows what is the amount to be received from the company and to be paid to the transport operators ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e do not survive for adjudication. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation in the name and style of M/s. Saibaba Transport having office opposite to Coca Cola factory at village Goblaj, district Kheda and also is a partner of M/s. Saibana Hotel having 25% share of profit, filed his return of income for AY 2006-07 on 27-11-2006 declaring taxable income of Rs.3,18,567/-. Initially, the case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28-02-2007 granting refund of Rs.1,40,907/-. Later, on scrutiny of the accounts by the learned AO it was noticed that the assessee had shown sundry creditors as on 31-03-2006 for payment due to truck owners at Rs.15,80,362/- out of which many of the creditors outstanding exceeded Rs.20,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should not be added to income of the assessee. The assessee furnished his written reply vide letter dated 16-12-2010 and the copy of CBDT Circular No.452 dated 17-02- 1986. The assessee had contended that the provisions of section 194C were not applicable to individual/HUF for the assessment year 2006-07. However, the argument of the assessee was rejected by the learned AO since assessee's turnover exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act. Thereafter, the learned AO made an addition of Rs.14,56,138/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and initiated proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee argued that he had not sub-let the work to the subcontractors but had hired the vehicles and performed the work himself. It was, therefore, contended that the provisions of section 194C of the Act will not apply in the present case. 6. The learned DR relied on the orders of the revenue and prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be sustained since he had judiciously considered the issue and even remitted back the issues related to payment for Rs.2,98,925/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- for verification and only sustained an amount of Rs.8,77,213/- for disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case, it is appar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at "provisions of section 194C will not be applicable when ships are hired for transportation of goods by the assessee." (ii) CIT Vs United Rice Land Ltd. 217 CTR (P&H) 332 wherein the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was pleased to held that "There being neither any oral or written agreement between the assessee and the transporters for carriage of goods nor it is proved that any freight charges were paid to them in pursuance of a contract for a specific period, quantity or price, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under s. 194C from the payments made to the transporters." (iii) Further, in the case K. Srinivas Naidu Vs CIT reported in 131 TTJ 17 (Hyd) it was held that "In the absence of any evidence on record to prove that....