TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... second issue is Assessing Officer's action in disallowing shortage of diesel and turbo amounting to Rs.85,056/-. The assessee vide ground No.7 has taken the issue of levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Ground No.1 to 5 resolve around the first issue and ground No.6 resolves around the second issue whereas ground No.7 relates to issue of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running petrol pump under the name and style of Rattan Fuels, Narnaul. He filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.7,68,260/- on 30.9.2008. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had made freight payment to M/s Sujan Singh HUF on which he was liable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relation to, the sub contractors are applicable only if the whole or any part of work undertaken by the assessee is performed by sub contractor which is not the case in the present appeal. iv) That similar payment in earlier years were also made and were not questioned by revenue and therefore following the principle of consistency, the addition should not have been made. v) That provisions of section 40a(ia) are attracted only in the case of amounts payable as held in the case of Hon'ble ITAT in Teja Construction v. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT (Hyd.) and in the present case only a sum of Rs.26,544/- remained payable. The assessee also relied upon the case law of Mythri Transport Corporation v. ACIT in I.T.A. No.182/Vizag/2008 of Hon'ble I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontract. 5.5. As regards the principle of consistency held in the case of Radha Swami Satsang (supra) relied upon by the AR, it may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the observations madse by their Lordships is only applicable to the appellant, havinRsg regard to the facts of the case. Further each assessment is an independent proceeding under the IT Act and res judicata as generally understood does not apply to IT proceedings. " "Regarding the argument that the provisions of section 40a(ia) are applicable only for amounts payable as per the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Teja Construction (supra), I would like to respectfully differ with the ratio of the said judgment taking into consideration the inten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. At the outset, the Ld AR submitted that section 40a(ia) was not applicable to the assessee as the contract was between the assessee and M/s HPCL and assessee had utilized the services of lorry only which was in the name of Sujan Singh HUF. He further submitted that there was no works contract between the assessee and lorry owner and in this respect our attention was invited to paper book page 41 where an agreement between the assessee and Sujan Singh HUF was placed and on the strength of this agreement, the Ld AR argued that there was no works contract and the assessee only managed the lorry of the lorry owner and charged 2.5% as his management fee and in this respect our attention was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Section 194C has the direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of the relevant clauses. According to our understanding section 194C is attracted if all the following conditions are satisfied:- a) The assessee should be a contractor. b) The assessee in his capacity as a contractor should enter into a contract with a sub contractor for carrying out the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the contractor. c) The sub contractor should carry out the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the contractor. d) The payment should be made for carrying out the whole or any part of the work. 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to be met by lorry owner. Therefore the risk assumed by assessee cannot be said to have been transferred to lorry owner and if there is no transfer of risk, the lorry owner cannot be said to have executed any part of contract. As per the provisions of section 194C the sub contractor is a person who carries out the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the assessee. It signifies a positive involvement in the execution as a whole or any part of the main work by spending his time, money, energy etc. and further taking risk in carrying out the special activities. In the instant case, there is no material to suggest that lorry owner involved himself in carrying out any part of the contract undertaken by the assessee spending time, mone....