TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Assessing Officer in invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and making disallowance of Rs. 42,60,708/-on estimate basis. 2. Briefly stated facts, according to the learned Assessing Officer, assessee is carrying on the business of transportation under the name and style of M/s Bharat Golden Carrier. For the assessment year 2010-11 assessee filed his return of income on 29/9/2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,50,734/-after adjusting the brought forward losses for the financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10 of Rs. 64,686/-. During scrutiny proceedings, learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee debited to its profit and loss a sum of Rs. 2,13,03,542/-towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the additional evidence. However, Ld. CIT(A) held that the truck owners were used for actual transportation of work and, therefore, the contract is for transportation of goods and not an arrangement for hiring of vehicles. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are attracted to the case of the assessee as no TDS was deducted on the amount of Rs. 2.13 crores under section 194C of the Act. 5. Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal. It is the argument of Ld. AR that in this case the assessee is a facilitator and provider of transport and a does not own even a single vehicle for transport. Assessee only arranges the vehicles for the people who transport the goods an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of which he enters into a contract with the clients. On this ground he justified the impugned orders. 8. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is clear that it's not the case of the revenue that the assessee owns anyvehicle. Further during the year under consideration, he received freight receipts to the tune of Rs. 2,25,63,625/-and a paid freight charges of Rs. 2,13,03,542/- making and earning of Rs. 2,60,083/- which roughly constitutes 1.15%. Assessee furnished the details of freight received and freight paid. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee also produced the party wise details of freight along with the PAN numbers. 9. All through the proceedings it is the case of the assessee is that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cargo Linkers (2009) 179 taxman 151 (del) and CIT vs. Hardarshan Singh (2013) 30 taxmann.com 245 (Delhi) for the principle that in a case where the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the clients and the transporters and mainly facilitates the contract for carrying goods, he cannot be held as the "person responsible" for deduction of tax at source under section 194C . In this matter the matching of the freight received and freight paid but for the difference of 1.15% which accounts for the commission of the assessee, indicates that the assessee is nothing but an intermediary between the clients and the vehicle owners/operators and mainly facilitates the contract for carr....