TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO that the assessee had debited freight expenses but failed to deduct the TDS. In compliance of show cause notice, the assessee has given the explanation as under: "During the year, I have shown hirecharges income & expenditure of Rs. 3,72,34,228/- on direct work as per use of our builty. My builty are used for transportation work, so hirecharges income & expenditure shown in may audited accounts I simply earned commission on such transaction. Hire charge received/paid directly to truck owner. Statement regarding TDS deducted on such hirecharges income submitted. In another type of transaction my built was not used but manage for transportation on commission basis so memo book used for such transaction. Your honour has examined my details regarding statement of commission earned Rs. 5,70,300/- as per builty used and memo book. Your honour has been requested to accept our income & expenditure of hirecharges as the same are accounted in our books. As per Section 194-C of the Act, TDS on Rs. 3,72,34,228/- has to be deducted and paid in time as per law. But section 194-c also provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said accounts are squared up with the appellant earning commissions only. To illustrate the aforesaid situations if the books of account are examined, say on 20.08.2007. 5.1 The assessee has also placed reliance on the following orders: (i) CIT vs. United Rice Land Ltd. (217 CTR 332 (PH) (ii) Rakshit Transport Vs. ACIT (dated 11.9.2009) (Kol.) (iii) Mrs. Kavita Chug Vs ITO (45 DTR 146) (Kol.) (iv) Mythri Transport Corp. Vs. ACIT (124 TTJ 970) (Visk) 5.2 After considering the facts as well as legal position, learned CIT(A) has granted relief as per the concluding para as under: "It is therefore, the appellant's contention has force that even if he has not filed form No.15-J, he is excluded from the rigors of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO's contention that appellant till date not maintained & given details party wise for proper justification of form 15-I had no force since AO had already examined such form in remand report. With due respect, even if such default is taken against appellant and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applied then as per Hon'ble Special Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[IT Appeal No. 1717 (Ahd.) of 2010, dated 31-8-2010]. The Tribunal also gave its own independent findings and conclusions. The Tribunal was of the view that the requirement of furnishing form No.15J was not related to the liability to deduct tax at source. Any infraction of such requirement would not result into disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is this view of the Tribunal, which the Revenue has challenged before us in the present tax appeal. 7. The exclusion provided in sub-section (3) of section 194C from the liability to deduct tax at source under sub-section (2) would thus be complete the moment the requirements contained therein are satisfied. Such requirements, principally, are that the sub-contractor, recipient of the payment produces a necessary declaration in the prescribed format and further that such sub-contractor does not own more than two goods carriages during the entire previous year. The moment, such requirements are fulfilled, the liability of the assessee to deduct tax on the payments made or to be made to such subcontractors would cease. In fact he would have no authority to make any such deduction. 8. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, on production of a declaration to the person concerned paying or crediting such sum, in the prescribed of a declaration to the person concerned paying or crediting such sum, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and within such time as may be prescribed, if such sub-contractor is an individual who has not owned more than two goods carriages at any time during the previous year." 6.2 We, therefore, on the short issue that in a situation when accepted factual position was that the assessee had collected Form15-I from different truck owners and the list was furnished before the lower authorities for an amount totaling Rs. 3,58,61,008/- which was duly acknowledged by the AO as well in the Assessment order then merely on the ground that the assessee had failed to submit Form 15-J as prescribed then according to us the issue is directly covered by the aforecited decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 6.3 Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby confirm the factual as well as legal findings of learned CIT(A). Resultantly, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 7.....