HC can’t go into findings of facts recorded by ITAT: DB

JAMMU, MAR 12: A Division Bench of the J&K High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Ali Mohd. Magrey while dismissing the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, against the Judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, held that the foundation of the proposed substantial question of law does not exist.
The assessee M/S Upkar Goods Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., a transporter, is engaged in the business of plying trucks for movement of goods from one place to another. The assessee owns trucks for the purposes of business and also hires trucks from other parties on the basis of its need from time to time. In the course of assessment proceedings for Year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made payments amounting to R 65,88,745 during the year under consideration under the head of ‘Lorry Hire Charges’, but had not deducted any tax on the said amount and therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed ‘Lorry Hire Charges’ while holding the assessee liable for violating the provisions of Section 194 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, accepted the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that each Goods Receipt can be said to be a separate contract, if the goods are transported at one time. But if the goods are transported continuously in pursuance of a contract for a specific period or quantity, each Goods Receipt will not be a separate contract and all GRs relating to that period of quantity will be aggregated for the purpose of TDS. The DB while hearing D.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the assessee M/S Upkar Goods Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., and dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax held that “the findings of facts recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the last forum for facts, cannot be gone into by the High Court merely because after re-appreciation of the evidence another view would be possible. In the present case also we find that the CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that there was no written or oral agreement between the parties for carriage of goods where the lump sum/total consideration was in excess of R 50, 000. On the other hand each GR was a separate contract. This finding of fact was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” JNF