Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Ms Arihant Trading Co. Pahari (ITAT Jaipur)
On perusal of sub-section (6) of section 194C, it is clear that all that is required for non-deduction of TDS on payment to the transporter is that the latter furnishes his PAN number to the person responsible for paying or crediting the amount to him. The primary onus is thus on the recipient to furnish his PAN to the payer and the payer, on receipt of such PAN number, is under statutory obligation not to deduct TDS on such payments. Further, the payer is also under a statutory obligation to furnish the said information in prescribed forms to the Income tax authority. To our mind, the statutory obligation to furnish the information regarding receipt of PAN and non-deduction of TDS is a fall out of and consequent of the first statutory obligation to not deduct TDS on receipt of PAN. However, merely because there is non-compliance on part of the assessee to furnish the prescribed information to the Revenue authorities, the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the assessee has not complied with the first statutory obligation. There are separate penal provisions for non-compliance thereof and the AO has infact invoked those penal provisions whereby show-cause has been issued to the assessee u/s 234E /271H dated 28.01.2019. In the instant case, once the assessee is in receipt of PAN and has not deducted TDS, it has complied with the first statutory obligation cast upon him and the assessee cannot be penalized for non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) which are deeming fiction relating to non-deduction of TDS have to be read in the limited context of non-deduction of TDS and the same cannot be extended to ensure that even where the assessee complies with his statutory obligation not to deduct TDS on receipt of PAN, merely because the subsequent obligation in terms of filing of prescribed forms has not been complied with, the assessee should suffer thirty percent of disallowance of the expenditure.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)- 22, Alwar dated 24.07.2018 wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194C of the ITAct on account offreight expenses.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
