Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A N Pahuja: This appeal filed on 27.10.2009 by the Revenue against an order dated 18-08-2009 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-IV, Baroda for the Assessment Year 2008-09 , raises the following grounds:-

"[1] The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s. 192 & 194 of the I T Act of Rs.29,61,255/- for AY 2008-09 by the AO by treating the hiring of contract for transportation/carriage of goods to be deducted u/s 194C of IT Act as against u/s 194I of the IT Act being trucks/vehicles given on hire by the AO.

[2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

[3] The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.

[4] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above effect."

2. At the outset, we may point out that the issues of levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 2 ITA nos.2926/Ahd/2009 the "Act"] and applicability of provisions of sec. 192 of the Act, referred to in ground no.1 of the appeal, do not emerge from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor have been agitated before us. The only issue before us is as to whether the case of the assessee falls u/s 194C or u/s 194I of the Act. W ith these observations, adverting now to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that a survey was undertaken in the premises of the assessee on 26-08-2008 when it was noticed that the payments made to transportation contractors fell within the ambit of provisions of sec. 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] and not u/s 194C of the Act. The ACIT(TDS)[AO in short] was of the opinion that since in respect of vehicles/trucks hired by the assessee company through the fixed rate contract/agreement for transferring the goods/material from one place to another within a specific time period and the assessee having paid fixed hire charges or freight charges, it was not necessary to take possession of vehicle or machinery by the company, entering in to contract and after 13.7.2006 all the machinery and plant including transportation of vehicle on hire were covered u/s 194I and not u/s 194C of the Act. Since the assessee deducted tax at source u/s 194C of the Act while the ACIT(TDS)[AO in short] was of the opinion that provisions of sec. 194I were applicable, the AO worked out difference of tax to the extent of Rs. 29,61,255/- for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 on penultimate page of his order dated 5.11.2008.

3 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in the following terms:-

"5. I have carefully considered the matter. Section 194C applies for the purpose of deduction of tax at source from payments for carrying out any'work' in pursuance of a contract. Explanation III below section 194C(2) defines expression "work", so as to include carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport other than by Railways. On the other hand, section 194I applies for the purpose of deduction of tax at source from the income by way of rent. Explanation below section 194I defines "rent"to mean payments for use of land, building, machinery, plant, 3 ITA nos.2926/Ahd/2009 equipment, furniture or fittings. Appellant has entered in to contracts with transporters for carriage of goods and not for hiring trucks. Even though the 'work' was done by the transporter using trucks, the payment by appellant was not for hiring the trucks but was for carriage of goods. As seen from the copies of sample Goods Consignment Notes filed by appellant, charges include hamali, i.e. loading/unloading charges, making it amply clear that the contract was for carriage of goods. Assessing officer has highlighted the fact that charges were fixed. However, this does not change the basic characteristic of contracts, which were for carriage of goods and not for hiring of trucks. One can always negotiate fixed charge for transporting goods from one place to other .It is also relevant to note that the trucks were never under appellant's possession. Moreover, description of goods transported was recorded in the invoices/documents of transporter. If the transporter had hired out the trucks to the appellant, there was no need to record description of goods transported/consigned by the appellant, in the bills etc. The contracts entered in to by the appellant were, therefore clearly in the nature of works contracts for carriage of goods under Explanation III, clause (c) below section 194C(2) and the payments in question were for the work of transportation of goods instead of being for hiring any plant or machinery or equipment. The CBDT circulars referred to by the appellant, specially Circular no. 6/2006 dated 23.6.2006 also indicate that tax is to be deducted u/s 194C from payments to transporters for carriage of goods. Further , as per CBDT Circular No. 720 dated 30.8.1995,' Each section regarding TDS under Chapter XVII deals with a particular kind of payment to the exclusion of all other sections in the Chapter. Thus, payment of any sum shall be liable for deduction of tax under one section. Appellant's case is squarely covered under section 194C as per clause (c) of Explanation III of the said section. In view of this, it is held that appellant rightly applied section 194C and deducted tax at source provided therein instead of section 194I.Action of ITO,TDS in working out difference of Rs.29,61,255/- as tax payable u/s 201(1) by applying section 194I is cancelled."

5. W e have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the decisions relied upon. Indisputably and as 4 ITA nos.2926/Ahd/2009 observed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee entered in to contracts with transporters for carriage of goods and not for hiring trucks. After considering the various documents ,including sample Goods Consignment Notes and referring to clause (c) of Explanation III, below section 194C and the CBDT Circular no. 6/2006 dated 23.6.2006 as also the Circular no. 720 dated 30.8.1995 , the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the contracts entered in to by the assessee were in the nature of works contracts for carriage of goods and the case of the assessee was covered u/s 194C and not u/s 194I of the Act. W e find that while adjudicating a similar issue, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in their aforesaid decision in Swayam Shipping Services (P) Ltd.(supra) concluded as under: