COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MUKESH TRAVELS CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {"Tribunal" for short} dated 12th April 2013. Issue pertains to assessment year 2007 -08. Revenue has presented following question for our consideration: - -

(2.) THE assessee went in appeal. Before the appellate authority, assessee additionally relied on the terms of the agreement between the assessee and the IPR to further contend that no part of the assessee's responsibility arising out of the said agreement was further contracted out with a private agency. The CIT(A), however, basing reliance on the terms of the agreement negated the contention. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's appeal and reversed the deduction. The Tribunal referred to various terms of the agreement and observed as under: - -

(3.) FROM the record, it clearly emerges that the Assessing Officer desired to bring the payment made by the assessee within the net of sub -section (2) of section 194C of the Act. Though not specifically stated so in the order itself, the tenor of the order is clear that he treated the relationship between the assessee and the third party [private agency] as that of contractor and subcontractor. It was precisely on the said premise, he based his observations and conclusions and held that the payments were covered under section 194C of the Act. Merely because he did not refer to sub -section (2) thereof, would not change this position. A short question therefore is - was there relationship between the assessee and the supplier of the vehicles as one of contractor and sub -contractor? In this respect, in addition to perusing the judgment of the Tribunal, we have also examined the terms of the agreement dated 15th September 2005 entered into between the assessee and the IPR.