By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
Principal CIT(TDS) Vs. BHEL; 390 ITR 322 (P&H):
For the A. Y. 2012-13, the Assessing Officer found that the
assessee had made payments to five contractors in respect of various contracts
and deducted tax in respect thereof u/s. 194C Act, at the rate of 2% and paid
to the Government treasury. He found that all the contracts involved the
provision of professional and technical services which fell within the ambit of
the provisions of section 194J and not u/s. 194C. The Assessing Officer held
that the contracts were not only for the erection and installation work, but
also for the commissioning, testing and trial operation of the various
equipment and other related machinery and that under the terms of the contract
it was the duty of the contractor to provide all types of labour, supervisors,
engineers, inspectors, measuring and testing equipments, testing and
commissioning for the execution of the project in accordance with the
specifications of the assessee. He held that the level of human intervention
was high and sophisticated and accordingly held the assessee to be in default
u/s. 201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax at source u/s. 194J. The
Commissioner (Appeals) held that the scope of the work given to the
sub-contractors involved construction work, welding, erection, alignment,
transportation of equipment and materials with the help of machines which did
not fall within the scope of technical services as defined in Explanation 2 to
section 9(1)(vii). He also held that merely because technical personel were
employed in the execution of contract it did not follow that the contract was
one for technical services. He allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The
Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
On appeal by the Revenue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court
upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The contract entered into between the
assessee and each of the contractors did not involve supply of professional and
technical services at least within the meaning of section 194J Act. Therefore,
considerations paid under the contracts were not for professional or technical
services rendered by the contractors to the assessee and section 194J was not
applicable.
ii) The technical personel were deployed not for
and on behalf of the customer, but for and on behalf of the contractor itself
with a view to ensuring that the contractor supplied the equipment in
accordance with the contractual specifications. The nature of human
intervention is reflected in the terms and conditions of the agreement itself.
iii) Questions are decided in favour of the
assessee. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”
