|COURT:||Rajasthan High Court|
|CORAM:||Inderjeet Singh J, K. S. Jhaveri J|
|SECTION(S):||194-H, 201(1), 201(1A)|
|CATCH WORDS:||actual payment, discount, TDS deduction|
|COUNSEL:||Abhishek Sharma, Ajay Vohra, Gaurav Jain, N. M. Ranka|
|DATE:||July 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 194H, 201(1): An obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194H arises only if the relationship is that of "principal and agent" and if a "payment" is made. As the relationship between the assessee and the distributor was that of "principal to principal" and as the "discount" did not amount to a "payment", there was no liability to deduct TDS|
The High Court had to consider the following questions of law in appeals filed by the assessee:
“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that assessee was liable to withhold tax at source under S.194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.19,74,842/- (including interest) in respect of sales to its distributors, which are on a principal to principal basis and wherein property in the goods is transferred to the distributors?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the statutory books of accounts, the auditors report and the certificate issued by the auditors and merely relying on the internal Management Information System records in coming to the conclusion on the nature of the dealings with the distributors?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that interest under Ss.201 (1A) and 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be levied on the appellant when the taxes due had already been paid by the distributor(s)/ when a valid stay of recovery has been obtained?
HELD by the High Court allowing the appeals:
(a) Now, the first question which has come up for our consideration is, ‘whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that assessee was liable to withhold tax at source under S. 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.19,74,842/- (including interest) in respect of sales to its distributors, which are on principal to principal basis and wherein property in the goods is transferred to the distributor’.
(b) Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from an angle other than the angle which was required to be considered by the Tribunal under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the provisions of Section 194H where the condition precedent is that the payment is to be made by the assessee and thereafter he is to make payment. In spite of our specific query to the counsel for the department, it was not pointed out that any amount was paid by the assessee company. It was only the arrangement by which the amount which was to be received was reduced and no amount was paid as commission.
(c) In that view of the matter, if we look at the provisions of Section 194H and even if explanation is taken into consideration, there is no occasion of invoking provisions of Section 194H, since the amount is not paid by the assessee.
(d) Taking into account the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Tribunal is misdirected in view of the arrangement which has been arrived at between the company and the Distributor. Assuming without admitting, if the contention which has been raised before the Tribunal is accepted, the same can be at the most expenses which are not allowable under the Income Tax Act, if at all claimed without proper basis but to conclude that they are covered under Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance on that basis is not correct.
(e) In our considered opinion, from which amount of tax is to be deducted is a doubtful proposition inasmuch as the Management Information System which has been sought to be relied upon for alleging that expenditure has been claimed could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal or the authorities under the Income Tax Act.
(i) The findings which are given by the Tribunal regarding Distributor being Agent in view of the discussion made here-inabove, the arrangement which has been made between the Company and the Distributor is on Principal to Principal basis and the responsibility is on the basis of agreement entered into between the parties.
(ii) Regarding MRP, the findings which are arrived at is a price which has been fixed by the assessee company and other expenses, namely; commission given to the retailer and everything is to be managed by the Distributor. In that view of the matter, the restrictions which are put forward will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent.
(iii) The Distributor has all rights to reduce his margin. He can increase the margin of retailer and will reduce the margin from 10% to anything between 1% to 10%. There is no restriction by the assessee to give commission amount to the retailer.
(iv) Regarding area of operation, it is the business policy of the assessee to give Distributor-ship for a particular area. Only on that basis, it will be erroneous to held that it is on Principal to Principal basis. For deciding the relation-ship on Principal to Principal basis, the criteria will not be of area of operation but agreement entered into between the parties.
(v) Regarding the change in price it is always between the assessee or the company and the Distributor to decide who will absorb the loss. In that view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous.
(vi) Regarding the return of goods after expiry date, it is always the understanding between the manufacturer and company that the product is not for preparation or consumed before expiry date, the consumed items cannot be allowed otherwise manufacturer will invite criminal liability. To avoid any criminal liability or any criminal act is done for taking back the goods, will not deter the relation-ship of Principal to Principal basis.
(vii) Regarding supervision, it is always for the manufacturer and the company to look into the matter that his Distributor or Sub- Distributor or Retailer will not induct in mal practice.
(viii) Regarding goods sold to the Distributor, it is always a matter of contract how further goods will be distributed. Restriction on sub-distributor will not change the transaction from Principal to Principal.
(ix) Regarding expenses which are described by the Tribunal and one of the reason is that it is always for the assessee to allow any special allowance or expenses to promote the sale. In a competitive world to promote the sale, if the Distributor is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow.
In that view of the matter, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Income Tax Officer cannot enter into the shoes of the assessee. (S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC).
(x) Regarding providing a vehicle it was very clear that by providing vehicle and getting list of expenses will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent.
(f) In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.
(g) The second issue which has been raised for our consideration, as discussed hereinabove, the Management Information System was not a part of their books of accounts nor could have been relied upon by the Income Tax Authorities. The basis on which the proceedings were initiated, in our considered opinion, the Statutory Audit Report is final conclusion over the authorities under the Income Tax Act, therefore, the second issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee.
(h) Regarding third issue whether 201A or 201(1A), in view of the decisions of different High Courts, the argument canvassed by counsel for the appellant pre-supposes deduction out of the payment. In our conclusion in issue No.1, the amount was not required to be deducted since they have not made any payment. In that view of the matter any proceedings under Section 201 or 201(1A) are misconceived. In that view of the matter, this issue is also answered in favour of assessee.
(i) Contention regarding provisions of Section 271 of the Act,in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola.