ITO, Ludhiana V. M/s Truck Operator Union, Ludhiana

ITA 978/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 97821514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIPIN KUMAR GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 978/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S TRUCK OPERATOR U NION, WARD III(3), ADDA JODHA MANDI, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA. PAN: AAAAT6198F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIPIN KUMAR GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.12.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DA TED 03.07.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE OF RS.32,65,554 BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF T HE I.T.ACT,1961 RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF IT AT IN ASSESSEE'S OW N CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07VIDEWHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 194C OF I.T. ACT. 1961 WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRUCK OPERATORS, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PAY MENTS WERE OF SUB- CONTRACTUAL NATURE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION OF IT AT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 20 06-07. WHO UP HELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WHEREIN, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO TRUCK OPERATOR S, THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO APPLY FOR TAN & ALSO FURNISH THE FORM NO. 15-1, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED AS SUB-CONTRACTOR AND WAS REQUIRED TO OBT AIN TAN & FURNISH FORM NO. 15-1. 2 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THA T OF A.O. BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL STANDS COVERED BY THE O RDER OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,65,554/- BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.1.22 CRORES ON ACCOU NT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. AS AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1.22 CRORES, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF RS. 1.16 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE MADE PAYMENTS EXCEEDING RS.50,000/ - ON WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED BEFOR E THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSEQ UENTLY DISALLOWED SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.32,65,554/-. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.761/CHD/2 009 RELATING TO 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ORDER DATED 24.2.2010. TH E RELEVANT PARAS OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED BY TH E CIT (APPEALS) AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 6. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE STAND S COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND ALSO 2008-09 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.1057/CHD/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 5.1.2012 IN TURN RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIG H COURT IN SIRMOUR TRUCK OPERATORS UNION VS. CIT (ITA NO.45 OF 2006) A LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN A LLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH