Appellant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. Respondent Shri Abrar Mohammad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR. CHHATTISGARHTAX CASE N0.S ^/2012 ^ S^^Q^ !7^ ^N.a;r",'^ AppellantCommissionerofIncomeTax,Bilaspur, ChhattisgarhVersusRespondentShri Abrar Mohammad, Prop M/s„RajaRoadLines,Taramal,P.0Gerwani, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh INCOMB=t TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-AOF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. TaxCaseNo.55of2012 APPELLANT Commissioner of Income Tax, BilaspurVERSUSShri Abrar Mohammad RESPONDENT Aopeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the Appellant. JUDGEMENT(25thNovember,2013) 1.This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Bilaspur Bench,Bilaspur,(the Tribunal) dated10.02.2012dismissingtheappealfiledbythelncom& TaxDepartment(theDepartment) in respect of Shri Abrar Mohammad (the Assessee) for theAssessment Year (the AY) 2007-08.Tribunal,Bilaspur Bench,Bilaspur,(the Tribunal) dated10.02.2012dismissingtheappealfiledbythelncom& TaxDepartment(theDepartment) in respect of Shri Abrar Mohammad (the Assessee) for theAssessment Year (the AY) 2007-08. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee claims to bea commission agent for Prakash Industriesas well as Nowa Iron and Steels Private Limited (the Companies) andarranges trucks for them. 3. The Assessing Officer (the AO) by his order dated 08.12.2009 added asum of ^3,08,44,702/- in the income of the Assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for not deducting the TDS forthe payment made to the truck owners under section 194C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur (the CIT-A). It wasallowed on the ground that no payment was made by the Assessee to thetruck owners directly and the amount added by the AO was deleted. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Departmentfiled an appealbefore the Tribunal. It was dismissed and the Department has filed the i i..-^ present appeal, which was admitted on 28.06.2012 on the followingsubstantial question of law:'Whether the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting theaddition of ^3,08,44,702/- which was made by AOby invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961?' THE DECISION 6. We have heard counsel for the Appellant. 7. The AO had added a sum of ^3,08,44,702/- under section 40(a)(ia) ofthe Act on the ground that this was the money paid to the truck ownersunder a contract by the Assessee and he should have deducted the TDSfrom the same. 8. However, the CIT-A after considering the evidence on record, has heldthat the Assessee was not a contractor for the truck owners, but merely acommission agent of the Companies; he was receiving only commission;and the money was paid directly by the Companies to the truck owners.This finding has been upheld by the Tribunal. 9. In case the money was not being paid by the Assessee but by theindustries directly to the truck owners, then, section 194C of the Act wasnot applicable. In view ofthe same, there is no illegality in the order oftheTribunal. 10. The tax case has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/-Sd/-ChiefJusticeManindraM«han_ShrivastavaJudge