New Bombay Goods Transport V. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad

ITTA/118/2014

AI Insights

The case involves New Bombay Goods Transport, Hyderabad, as the appellant, and the Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad, as the respondent. The appeal was against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.06.2012 concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant raised questions regarding the non-applicability of provisions of Section 194C and consequently Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning hire charges of lorries. The Tribunal had previously restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the payment of hire charges during the relevant year, referencing a decision by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in a similar case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision to verify the actual payments made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810535 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mythri Transport Corporation vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Hire charges; Non-applicability of provisions; Lorries
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 118 of 2014 Date: 25.02.2014 Between: New Bombay Goods Transport, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 118 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.06.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in not adjudicating the contentions raised by the appellant firm with regard to non-applicability of provisions of S.194C and consequently non-applicability provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the provisions of S.194C are not applicable towards hire charges of Lorries taken on simple hire basis; more so when some of the recipients have filed declarations in Form No.151 and payments made to some of the lorry owners was less than Rs.50,000/- during the relevant previous year? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in confining the scope of its direction to the assessing officer only to verification of facts in the case of the appellant firm vis-à-vis the applicability of law laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in ITA No.477/Vizag/2008 in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation vs. ACIT?” The learned Tribunal, while examining the judgment of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on fact, found from the records as follows: “These facts now raised by the assessee could not be appreciated or examined either by the AO or by the CIT(A) since the appellant did not produce its books of accounts or other necessary details. It is seen from the documents in the form of paper book as well as observations made by the AO in the assessment order that the assessee has paid hire charges in the relevant previous year. If it is a fact then no disallowance could be made u/s. 40a(ia) of the Act which can only be invoked to disallow the amounts which remained payable at the end of the year. This is also the law laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in its order passed in ITA.No.477/Vizag/2008 in case of Mythri Transport Corporation vs. ACIT. Considering the fact that neither the AO nor the CIT (A) had the benefit of the decision of Special Bench when orders were passed by them and also considering the contentions of the learned AR that the hire charges were paid during the relevant previous year, we think it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to examine as to whether hire charges debited to profit and loss A/c have actually been paid during relevant previous year.” In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order. Therefore, nothing has been decided so to say. The aforesaid fact finding has not been attacked to be perverse. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power in this matter. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we hope that the Assessing Officer shall decide the matter as early as possible. All points are kept open. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 25.02.2014 ES "