AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI V. ITO-TDS,W-1(3), INCOME TAX OFFICE,TDS WARD

ITA 825/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which demanded TDS on rental payments made to various parties. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially raised a demand for Rs.30.43 Lacs, including interest, for not deducting TDS on aggregate payments of Rs.155.29 Lacs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the demand to Rs.112.92 Lacs. The appellant argued that the rental payments did not exceed Rs.1.80 Lacs per party, and thus, were not subject to TDS. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting the lack of documentary evidence was due to the temporary nature of the godown hire and not a deliberate omission.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134396 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 201(1); 201

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी वी. द ु गा राव, ाियक सद एवं माननीय ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद के सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.825/Chny/2023 (िनधा रण वष / As sessment Year: 2016-17) M/s. Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt.Ltd. 1-D, Lakshmi Bhavan, No.609, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. बनाम / V s . ITO-TDS Ward-1(3), Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/TAN AAACA-5364-L / CHEAO- 105 0- A (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Sunil Sharma, (CA)-Ld.AR थ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18-10-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 24-05-2023 in the matter of an order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 201 (1) / 201(1A) of the Act on 21-03-2023 raising certain demand against the assessee for want of TDS on rental payments. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 2 ITA No.825/Chny/2023 1. That the Ld. AO was not justified in treating sum paid below Rs.1,80,000/- as Rent for various properties to 70 odd persons as liable for deduction of TDS u/s.194-I, there by treating the assessee in default and levying TDS u/s.201 on the aggregate payment. The Ld. CIT(A) went wrong in drawing conclusion on different footings even though legally the appellant was not liable for TDS. The order is perverse and liable to be set aside. [Tax Effect: Rs.11,29,214] 2. That Ld. AO was not justified in imposing interest u/s.201(1A) on the amount of TDS not deducted, which should have been deducted by wrongly invoking the provisions and Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the wrong action of AO. Though levy of interest is consequential, but it should be deleted. [Tax Effect: Rs.10,84,045] 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed on record the details of rental payments made by the assessee. It was the submission of Ld. AR that the rental payment, in each of the case, did not exceed the threshold limit of Rs.1.80 Lacs and therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source (TDS) against these payments. The Ld. AR also averred that merely because the assessee has accepted disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia), the same could not necessarily make assessee as assessee-in-default u/s 201(1) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the demand has been raised for want of adequate details and lack of supporting documents. The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and proceedings u/s 201(1) are different proceedings. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 3. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in transport of goods. An assessment was made u/s 143(3) for this year wherein it transpired that the assessee paid godown rent to various parties. The assessee paid rent of Rs.42.36 Lacs and deducted Tax at source u/s 194I. However, no tax was deducted on rental payment of Rs.112.92 Lacs on the ground that the payment to each of the party was below threshold limit of Rs.1.80 Lacs. Since the assessee 3 ITA No.825/Chny/2023 could not furnish the supporting documents, Ld. AO made applicable disallowance of 30% u/s 40(a)(ia). 4. As a consequence of above assessment, Ld. AO passed another order u/s 201(1) / 201(IA) and held that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on aggregate payment of Rs.155.29 Lacs and accordingly, raised demand of Rs.30.43 Lacs which include interest of Rs.14.90 Lacs. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) directed Ld. AO to revise the demand to the extent of default i.e., Rs.112.92 Lacs. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon perusal of payment details as placed on page nos. 30 & 31 of the paper book, it could be seen that the assessee has furnished the complete details of rental payment i.e., Godown Location, address of the Godown, name & PAN of landlord and payment made to each of them. We find that the payment to each of these parties is less than threshold limit of Rs.1.80 Lacs and therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS on these payments considering the provisions of Sec.194I. Keeping in mind the nature of assessee’s business, the assessee may be temporality hiring the godown and may not be successful in furnishing adequate documentary evidences to the satisfaction of lower authorities. For that lapse, the assessee has already suffered disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). But, nevertheless, the details as furnished before lower authorities are sufficient to make a reasonable conclusion that the assessee was not liable for TDS on these payments. Accordingly, the assessee could not be treated as assessee-in-default u/s 201(1) / 201(IA) of the Act particularly when all the payees are having PAN. 4 ITA No.825/Chny/2023 Therefore, by deleting the impugned demand, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 6. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 18 th October, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ाियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 18-10-2023 DS आदेशकीYितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु