TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,09,804/- on account of violation of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and in not admitting the additional evidence. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer, on perusal of the TDS certificate attached with the return of income found that assessee made a claim of refund of Rs. 70,468/-. The return of income and balance sheet revealed that assessee firm is engaged in the business of transportation i.e. to book the orders for transportation of goods and engage trucks from market and transport the goods. The perusal of TDS certificates show that payments are received by the assessee firm on GR basis i.e. for each truck load/bilty. Payments have been quantified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uled out. Therefore, proposal was made to disallow the same under section 40(a)(ia) as well as 40A(3) of the Act. 6. The assessee in the written reply explained that assessee was engaged in the business of transport commission agent and charging commission from the truck owners in consideration to the engagement of the trucks to the transport parties. The assessee has never sent goods on GR basis, instead of freight income, they receive only commission income from the owners of the trucks by using only commission slip. The assessee acted as an agent between the transporter of above parties mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his letter and assessee never used any bilty for any purpose. The assessee did not receive freight payment and ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decisions cited by assessee are totally on different facts because in that cases, Assessing Officer has not proved that assessee had received or made payment of freight whereas in the case of the present assessee, the assessee has shown 'freight received' and 'freight paid' which are also noted in the books of account. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that similarly as its principal has deducted tax on the payments to the assessee, the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source under section 194C of the Income Tax Act on payment to sub-contractor. Since, assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the freight exceeded Rs. 20,000/- as per consignment, therefore, the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional evidence is rejected. I find that assessee has itself shown the receipts of the freights and the same has been credited to P&L account to the tune of Rs. 81,10,852/-. Also, the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 80,23,520/- for hiring the trucks as per its books of account. The assessee's argument that it had earned only commission income is self-contradictory in view of these facts. If the appellant was only a commission agent then only the commission income should have been shown in its books of account. Also, the argument of the Id. AR that it had issued no GR/bilty for the trucks arranged through is of no consequence as the assessees has itself shown the receipts and payments of freight. The assertion of the Assessing Officer tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;freight paid' of the amount mentioned above. The assessee, however, claimed that it has acted as a Commission Agent only. However, the claim of assessee was not proved through any reliable and cogent evidence. The books of account of the assessee itself falsify the claim of assessee that it has acted as commission agent only. The theory of commission agent propounded by the assessee was not proved through any evidence or material on record. The assessee also claimed that its principal has deducted tax on payment to the assessee, therefore, Assessing Officer was justified in holding that assessee should have similarly deducted tax at source under section 194C of the Income Tax Act on payments to sub-contractors. 11. The assessee filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was neither any oral or written agreement between the assessee and the transporter for carriage of goods, nor it has been proved that any sum of money regarding freight charges was paid to them in pursuance of the contract for specific period, quantity or price. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue confirming the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Chander Bhan Bansal [IT Appeal No. 492 of 2005 dated 7-12-2010] in which the facts were that assessee was engaged in booking of trucks for transporters after having procured the same from the market on commission basis and derived the inc....