Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar

I.T.A. No. 21 of 2010 and connected appeals 2 The following substantial questions of law have been raised by the revenue in ITA No. 21 of 2010:-

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), deleting the demand created by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in holding that contract was for supply of goods and not a case of executing works contract ignoring the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

. It is pertinent to notice that in the other appeals similar questions of law have been raised by the revenue. Brief facts of the case as culled out from ITA No. 21 of 2010 are that the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Hisar, noticed that the assessee-General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, entered into a contract with the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited, Gurgaon (HRECL), for fabrication of bodies of buses but failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act.

During the Financial Year 2006-07 (Assessment Year 2007- 08) the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 28,99,252/- as fabrication charges. However, no tax at source at the rate of 2% plus cess was deducted out of the aforesaid payment in terms of Section 194C of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Hisar, treated the assessee in default and raised a demand of Rs. 76,120/- in respect of the Financial Year 2006-07, vide order dated 29.8.2008, passed under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act (A-1). The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income I.T.A. No. 21 of 2010 and connected appeals 3 Tax (Appeals), Rohtak, against the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Hisar. The CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, dated 22.7.2008, passed in ITA Nos. 1001 and 1002/CHD/2007, in respect of the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 (General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra v.

ITO Ward- I/TDS, Kurukshetra) and also relied upon his own order dated 21.10.2008 in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jhajjar, in ITA Nos. 79 and 80/RTK/2008-09, while allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 11.12.2008 (A-2). Thereafter the revenue preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, Delhi, against the order of the CIT (A), Rohtak. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that the contract was for supply and was not a works contract. The Tribunal followed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh, in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, in ITA No. 1001 and 1002/Chd/2007, dated 22.7.2008, against which ITA Nos. 131 and 132 of 2009 have been filed. The finding recorded in para 11 of the order by the Tribunal reads thus:- “11.

From the facts narrated by the department itself, it is clear that Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd., Gurgaon manufactured and fabricated the bus bodies as per specification given by the Transport Commissioner and Secretary (Transport) to Govt. of Haryana and the ownership of the vehicle passed on to the Govt. of Haryana through Transport Commissioner and Secretary (Transport) after full payment is made by Transport Commissioner, Haryana Roadways. The manufacturer and fabricator of the bus bodies also charged sales tax and VAT as applicable. From this I.T.A. No. 21 of 2010 and connected appeals 4 fact, it is clear that it is a case of supply of bus bodies manufactured and fabricated as per specification given by the buyer. Thus, it is not a case of executing works contract as it contemplated u/s 194C of the Act. It is a case of supply of goods as per specification given by the buyer.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper books with their able assistance we are of the considered view that there is no merit in these appeals warranting their admission and the same are liable to be dismissed.

From the categorical findings it is evident that Haryana Roadways did not purchase any bus chasis and, therefore, there was no question of any contract between Haryana Roadways through its Transport Commissioner and Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited. It is a simple case of supply of buses by the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited to the Haryana Roadways. The supply of buses as such has been subjected to charge of Sales Tax and VAT. We may examine Section 194C(1) of the Act, which envisages payment of any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and Central or State Government etc. In the present case there is no such contract for carrying out any contract nor the expression ‘Contractor’ could be imputed to any one of the parties. Therefore, no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court.

These appeals are wholly without merit and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE I.T.A. No. 21 of 2010 and connected appeals 5 April 29, 2010 Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Chandigarh v. 2 Sr. No.ITA No.Parties Name131 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Haryana Roadways, General Manager, Kurukshetra132 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra.21 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar.22 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani.23 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar.24 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani.25 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v.

General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani.26 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani.27 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad.28 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad.29 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad.30 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE April 29, 2010 Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE