M/s ACC Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT (TDS), Chandigarh

CO 33/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1402 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SSH SOUMEN ADAK; PRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Presumptive income
• Section: 2(14); 194C; 201(1); 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 651 & 652/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 & 2013-14 THE ACIT (TDS), VS. M/S ACC LIMITED, CHANDIGARH (CHANDIGARH SALES UNIT), CHANDIGARH & C.O. NOS. 33 & 34/CHD/2015 (IN ITA NOS. 651 & 652/CHD/2015) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S ACC LIMITED, VS. THE ACIT (TDS), (CHANDIGARH SALES UNIT), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. RAJINDER KAUR RESPONDENT BY : S/SH. SOUMEN ADAK & PRAKASH SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING COMMON ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHE R AND ARE BEING DISPOSE OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. FIRSTLY, WE WILL TAKE UP APPEAL IN ITA NO. 651/ CHD/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- THE CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT THE DEFINITION OF GOODS CARRIAGE AS PROVIDED IN SEC TION 44AE(7) IS ALSO APPLICABLE U/S 194C(6) SINCE THE P AYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE AGENCIES NOT TO PERSONS WHO P LIED THE TRUCKS. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 201(1) READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHO RT 'THE ACT') ON 11.3.2014 CREATING A DEMAND OF RS . 3,54,02,834 /-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CEMENT MANUFACTURING. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT DEDUCING TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKIN G THE PAYMENTS TO TRANSPORTERS ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES, AS REQU IRED U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HA D MADE PAYMENT TO THE TRANSPORTER NAMELY BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATOR S TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,42,75,33672/- ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES WITHO UT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE N OTICE U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 5.3.2014 AND IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 10.3.20 14 WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO A SSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION FROM TDS IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORT CONTRA CT IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 194C(6) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER:- NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING, OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGES ON FURNISHING OF HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. TO THE PERSON PAYING OR CREDITING S UCH SUM. 3 4. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE AB OVE PROVISIONS, TWO BASIC CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED TO BE COME ELIGIBLE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE I.E. (I) PERSON MUST BE CONTRACTOR, AND (II) SUCH PERSONS RECEIVES PAYMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSI NESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING OF GOODS CARRIER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT GOODS CARRIERS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED IN EXPLANATION (II) TO SUB SECTION (7) OF SECTION 194C WHICH PROVIDES THAT GOODS CARRIER SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB SECTION (7) TO SECTION 44 AE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPRESSION GOODS CARRIAG E AND HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES SHALL HAVE THE MEANING PRACTICALLY ASSIGNE D TO THEM TO OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EXPLAN ATION TO SUB SECTION (7) OF SECTION 44AE ALSO PROVIDES THAT ASSESSEE WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF GOODS CARRIER WHETHER TAKEN ON HIRE, PURCHASE OR ON INSTA LLMENT FOR WHICH THE WHOLE OR PART OF AMOUNT PAYABLE IS STILL DUE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE CONCERNS WHO IS UNDERTAKING JOB OF PROCURI NG BUSINESS FOR ITS MEMBERS TO TRANSPORT OF PRODUCTS OF THE COMPANY, DO NOT OWN ANY GOODS CARRIERS AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE TERMED AS CONTRACTOR S. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING, PLYING OR LEASING OUT OF GOODS CARRIERS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ABOVE CONCERN SO THAT WORK TO THE INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OPERATORS IS GIVEN STRICTLY IN TURN AND THAT SO E VERY TRUCK OPERATOR HAS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO CARRY GOODS AND EARN INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ABOVE CONCERNS DO NOT DO ANY TRA NSPORTATION WORK AND IT DOES NOT OWN ANY GOODS CARRIER AND THE CONCERN HAS BEEN FOUND WITH A VIEW TO OBTAIN THE WORK OF CARRIAGE FROM ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT TRANSPORT CONCERNS DO NOT OWN GOODS CARRIAGE. THE ASSESSING 4 OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELI GIBLE FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS ASSE SSEE IN DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ACT WITH REGARD TO THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRANSPORT CONCERN WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A LSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE A CT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CREATED A DEMAND OF RS. 3,54,02,834./- U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DEMAND CREATED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. AS THE D EMAND CREATED U/S 201(1)/(1 A) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO H.P. EX -SERVICEMEN CORPORATION HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 'NIL', THE DISPUTE REMAINS ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS CO- OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD. FOR APPRECIATING T HE ISSUE IN PROPER PROSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPR ODUCE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF READ Y REFERENCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(6) AND EXPLANATION-(II) BELOW SECTION 194C(7), PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE{1) AND EXPLANAT ION BELOW SECTION 44AE(7) OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: '194C. PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS. ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RE SIDENT /HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE CONTR ACTOR) FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR F OR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK) IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN TH E CONTRACTOR AND A SPECIFIED PERSON SHALL, AT THE TIM E OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMO UNT EQUAL TO 5 --------------- (6) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM ANY SUM CREDITE D OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF A CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINE SS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGES, ON FURNI SHING OF HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER, TO THE PERSON PAYING OR C REDITING SUCH SUM. --------------- EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, - ---------------- ` (II) 'GOODS CARRIAGE' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSI GNED TO IT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 44AE; ' '44AE. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAG ES. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 28 TO 43C, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, W HO OWNS NOT MORE THAN TEN GOODS CARNAGES AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING SUCH GOODS CARRIAGES, THE INCOME OF SUCH BUSINESS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS , FROM ALL THE GOODS CARNAGES OWNED BY HIM IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S ECTION (2). --------------- EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,- (A) THE EXPRESSION 'GOODS CARRIAGE' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988 (59 OF 1988); (B) AN ASSESSEE, WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A GOODS CA RRIAGE, WHETHER TAKEN ON HIRE PURCHASE OR ON INSTALLMENTS A ND FOR WHICH THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE IS ST ILL DUE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF SUCH GOODS CARRI AGE.' 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS EVIDENT TH AT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS TO SECTION 194C(6), FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE SATISFIED: THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PL YING, HIRING OR LEASING OF GOODS CARRIAGE. 6 THE TERM 'GOODS CARRIAGE' IS ASSIGNED MEANING AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. SECTION 2(14} OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DEFINES GOODS CAR RIAGE AS - ''GOODS CARRIAGE 1 MEANS ANY MOTOR VEHICLE CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED FOR USE SOLELY FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS , OR ANY MOTOR VEHICLE NOT SO CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED WHEN US ED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS'. PAN IS FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PAYE R I.E. DEDUCTOR. THE DEDUCTOR FURNISHES BEFORE THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITY THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE CONTRACTOR IN T HE PRESCRIBED FORM. 5.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD OBTA INED PAN FROM THE PAYEE AND FURNISHED THE SAME BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. FURTHER, THE GOODS CARRIAGES INVOLVED ALSO SATISFIE D THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. THEREFORE, THE O NLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE PAYEE I.E. BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS 'SOCIETY 5 ) WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING OF GOODS CARRIAGE. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF BYE-LAWS OF THIS SOCIETY, A PERUSAL OF WHICH REVEALS THAT THE M AIN OBJECT OF THIS SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE GOODS AND PASSENGER CARRIAGES ON HIRE AND LEASE TO ANYONE. THIS CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING AND LEASING OF GOODS CAR RIAGE. AS PER CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE SOCIETY, IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SOCIETY TO HONOUR THE COMMITMENT AND OBLIGATION, WHICH AROSE FROM THE SAID AGREEMENT AND TO BEAR ALL RISKS ARISING THEREFROM 5.3 IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT EXPLANATION--(II) BEL OW SECTION 194C(7) REFERS TO THE DEFINITION OF 'GOODS CARRIAGE' , TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION (A) BELOW SUB- SECTION (7) OF SECTION 44AE AND SO THE REFERENCE IS ONLY IN CONTEX T OF DEFINITION OF GOODS CARRIAGE. EXPLANATION-(A) BELOW SECTION 44AE( 7) IS APPLICABLE TO SECTION 194C, BUT EXPLANATION-(B) BEL OW SECTION 44AE{7) IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SECTION 44 AE. THEREFORE, THE 7 INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FOR T HE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 194C, THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE OWNERSHIP CRIT ERIA MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION-(B) BELOW SECTION 44AE(7) IS NOT CORREC T. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT RIGHT IN TREATING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE AS 'AS SESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE S OCIETY AND THE DEMAND CREATED U/S 201(1)/ (1A) IS ACCORDINGLY DELE TED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(6) READ WITH EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 194C OF THE ACT IN HIS ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THESE PROVISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT FOLLOW ING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 19 4C(6) OF THE ACT:- I) THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGE. II) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ITS PAN NO. TO THE DED UCTOR III) THE DEDUCTOR FURNISHES BEFORE THE I.T. AUTHORITIES THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR IV) GOODS CARRIAGE SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS ASSIG NED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PHOTOCOPY O F THE BYE-LAWS OF THE BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE TRAN SPORT SOCIETIES LTD. WHEREIN THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE GOODS AND PASSENGER CARRIAGES ON HIRE OR LEASE. THE TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY H AS ALSO FURNISHED ITS PAN NUMBER TO THE ASSESSEE, A COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE 44 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT IS CLAIMED THAT IN TERMS OF RULE 31A(4)(V), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED PARTICULARS OF AMOUNT P AID OR CREDITED TO THE 8 TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ON WHICH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED IN ITS QUARTERLY TDS RETURN. SHRI SOUMEN ADAK, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GOODS CARRIAGE INVOLVED ALSO SATISFIES THE DEFINITI ON OF GOODS CARRIAGE GIVEN IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. THE T ERM GOODS CARRIAGE MEANS ANY MOTOR VEHICLE CONSTRUED OR ADOPTED FOR USE SOLE LY FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR ANY MOTOR VEHICLE NOT SO CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED WHEN USED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERV ED THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 194C, THE ASSESSEE IS RE QUIRED TO SATISFY THE OWNERSHIP CRITERIA MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION (B) BELOW SECTION 44AE(7) IS NOT CORRECT . IN OUR VIEW, REFERENCE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 44AE (7) IN SECTION 194C IS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF DEFINITION OF GOODS CARRIAGE. CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 44AE(7) DEFINES GOODS CARRIAGE AND CLAUSE (B) DEFINES DEEMED OWNERSHIP. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY HELD THAT CLAUSE (A) IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTION 194C AND 44 AE, CLAUSE ( B) IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SECTION 44AE, SINCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRESUMPTIVE TAXATION THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT OWN MORE THAN TEN GOODS CARRIAGES. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE OWNERSHIP CRITERIA AS MENTIONED IN C LAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 44AE (7). ON A PERUSAL OF SECTION 194C (6) READ WITH EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 194C, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE TRAN SPORT CONTRACTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THE OWNER OF GOODS CARRIAGE FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194C(6) OF THE ACT. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT AN AM ENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2015 IN SECTION 194C (6) WHEREIN IT IS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT W.E.F. 1.6.2015, THE BENEFIT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TA X ON PAYMENT MADE TO TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY IF T HE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR OWNS TEN OR LESS GOODS CARRIAGES AT ANY TIME OF THE PREV IOUS YEAR AND A DECLARATION TO 9 THIS EFFECT IS FURNISHED. IN OUR OPINION, THE LEGIS LATURE HAS INTENTIONALLY INSERTED THE OWNERSHIP CONDITION FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX WHICH WAS NOT EXISTING IN THE ERSTWHILE SECTION 194C(6) O F THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSEE (PERSON RESPONSIBLE) CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD TH E SAME. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O. NO. 33/CHD/2015 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , SHRI SOUMEN ADAK, LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJEC TION. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 652/CHD/2015 : 10. IN THIS APPEAL AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT THE DEFINITION OF GOODS CARRIAGE AS PROVIDED IN SEC TION 44AE(7) IS ALSO APPLICABLE U/S 194C(6) SINCE THE P AYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE AGENCIES NOT TO PERSONS WHO P LIED THE TRUCKS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 651/CHD/2015, THEREFORE, TH E DECISION GIVEN IN ITA NO. 651/CHD/2015 SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THIS APPEAL WITH E QUAL FORCE. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10 C.O NO. 34/CHD/2015 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED . 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FIELD BY THE RE VENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.10.2015 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 29 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR