ANILKUMAR ARJUNDAS SHARDA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -VIII, Ahmedabad, dated 14.08.2013 for A.Y. 2008 -09 on the following grounds:

(2.) Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20,72,500/ - on account of freight and labour charges due to non deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As stated above, that disallowance has been made by Assessing Officer as assessee did not deduct TDS and payment made to various truck owners on account of freight of transportation of coconuts which were received from South India. Assessing Officer was of the view that since each payment is more than Rs. 20,000/ - assessee should have deducted TDS. Stand of assessee has been that there was no oral or written contract with truck owners. Therefore provisions of Section 194C were not applicable. He produced some copies of purchase bill and transport bill which reveals that transportation charges were mentioned by supplier of coconut in the bill. It is not in dispute that transport has not hired directly by assessee. Trucks were hired by seller who used to send coconut to assessee and as each bill contained truck number. There was direction to assessee that certain amount should be paid to truck driver on account of freight. It is not is dispute while issuing sale invoice for coconuts the seller also used to write a letter to assessee informing the dispatch of coconuts. It was also informed assessee that goods being dispatched by a particular truck number and freight to be paid to truck driver was also mentioned. This kind of practice of sending goods by seller and fixing freight to be paid by assessee indicates that there must have been an understanding between assessee and seller of coconut regarding freight to be paid. On this presumption, Revenue authorities drew inference that there was oral contract between transporter and assessee which has been engaged through seller. We find that Ahmedabad 'D' Bench in ITA No. 3422/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 2005 -06 in case of M/s. Pramukh Jute Traders v. ITO has held as under:

(3.) As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.