TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken and consequently also incorrect in dismissing the additional ground taken in this behalf. 3) Holding that the assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s 40(a)(ia). 4) Holding that addition of Rs. 11,93,446/- has been rightly made by the AO. 5) Holding that action u/s 147/148 has been rightly taken even when the reasons recorded do not satisfy the necessary condition of "income" escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for such assessment. 6) Confirming the addition of Rs. 11,93,446/- u/s 40(a)(ia) even when such provision are not applicable to the assessee. 7) Confirming the addition of Rs. 11,93,446/- even when alternatively the assessee can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On being asked, the assessee has filed a chart showing the above payment. From the chart filed by the assessee it has been noticed that the assessee was liable to deduct the tax under the preview of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the followings payments made to the following parties on account of Freight;- In case of M/s. Shriram Automotive Products Ltd. i) Flying Golden Rs.1,85,192/- ii) V.L.T. Rs.1,08,337/- iii) A.R.C Rs.1,66,887/- iv) Singh Carriers Rs.59,563/- v) Patel Roadways Rs.74,909/- vi) Kanpur Delhi Rs.51,541/- Total freight paid Rs. 6,46,429/- In case of M/s. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. i) Flying Golden - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case, it was undeniably the appellant who was responsible for the payments to the transport contractors. Accordingly, the appellant erred in law in not deducting the tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) while making the payments to the transporters." 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that expenses were not claimed in the profits and loss accounts, as alleged by the AO. A reference was made to page no. 30 of the assessee's paper book which is the copy of the profit and loss account for the year ended on 31.03.2006. It was stated that the assessee was earning the commission and no payment was made either to M/s Shriram Automotive Products Ltd. or M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. It was further stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee acted only as an intermediary and there was no privity of contract between the assessee and client of carriers of goods. The assessee was clearing and forwarding agent and made the payments to the transporters which were reimbursed by the principal who deducted the TDS. On perusing the copy of profit and loss account placed at page no. 30 of the assessee's paper book. It is noticed that no such expenses were debited in the profit and loss account. The AO, however, made the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The provisions contained in the said Section, relevant to the year under consideration, read as under: "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson responsible' for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying goods. The principal contract was between the exporter and the airline. This court, in Cargo Linker's (supra), agreed with the view of the Tribunal which had mainly decided an issue of fact, namely, the nature of the contract between the parties concerned. The Court also observed that it had also been found as a matter of fact that the contract was actually between the exporter and the airline a....