Commissioner of Income Tax-20 vs Harjeet Sharma

CM No. 8776/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

ITA No. 319/2015

This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (''Act'') is directed against an order dated 18th July 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (''ITAT'') in ITA No. 6147/Del/2013 pertaining to the Assessment Year (''AY'') 2006-07.

The question raised is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 45,49,578/- on account of non-deduction of TDS by the Respondent Assessee on payments made on account of freight and cartage?

The Respondent Assessee was a cargo agent and in the business of booking freight and cartage. During the AY in question, the Assessee disclosed in her returns freight receipts of Rs. 51,06,607. She claimed freight and cartage expenses to the tune of Rs. 45,49,578 in the Profit and Loss Account.

On the basis that the Assessee ought to have deducted TDS on the above payments in terms of Section 194C of the Act, the CIT-XII, Delhi passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 21st March 2011 directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to disallow the above contractual payments of Rs. 45,49,578. Accordingly, the AO passed an order under Sections 144/263/143(3) of the Act on 28th November 2011 and disallowed the aforementioned amount under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act.

By order dated 17th September 2013 the CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO. The ITAT has in the impugned order, while allowing the Respondent Assessee''s appeal, returned a factual finding that the Assessee was working as an agent for Jet Airlines. She "was acting as an intermediary only and was not liable for making payment of freight and cartage and the assessee was only collecting the freight on behalf of airlines." The ITAT noted that the CIT (Appeals) had wrongly distinguished the decision of this Court in CIT v. Cargo Linkers 218 CTR 695.

No material has been placed before the Court by the Revenue to dispute the above factual finding returned by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises for determination.

The appeal is dismissed.