2020 (2) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....007-08. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law, for consideration of this Court: "a) Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,49,02,235/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax under Section 194C of the Act by holding the assessee as a mere commission agent?   b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that assessee was a mere commission agent ignoring the ratio laid down in ITO Vs. Gopal S. Rajput, (2015) 156 ITD 827 (Mum tribunal) and ITO Vs. Rajesh Boricha [2013] 38 taxmann.com 435 (Rajkot-Trib.) wherein it is clearly laid out that asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e had made payment of the freight charges to the truck owners as against the provisions of Section 194C without deducting the TDS? 8. We take notice of the following finding of the fact, recorded by the Tribunal: "6.4. The learned AR for the assessee has also submitted the details of the commission income earned by him on sample basis which is placed on pages 8 to 9 of the paper book which was also not controverted by the AO during the remand proceedings. Indeed, the assessee has not furnished the details of the commission income for the entire year. But to our mind if the AO was not satisfied with the details furnished by the assessee then he should have required the assessee to furnish the details for the entire year.....