Introduction It is an accepted fact that the provisions relating to tax deduction at source (TDS) under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are very cumbersome, ambiguous and irrational. No amount of input can give you an assurance that the compliances are flawless. There would hardly be any organisation that can claim perfection in compliance with these provisions. As regards the Government organisations — including statutory corporations, nationalised banks, etc., the less said the better.
The law-makers in their wisdom have by and large exempted individuals and HUFs from complying with these provisions. However, there is still much to desire in this respect.
The unfairness In sections 194A (Interest), 194C (Contracts), 194H (Commission), 194I (Rent) and 194J (Professional fees), there are clear provisions that ordinarily, an individual and HUF are not required to deduct tax at source. However, either a sub-section or a proviso in these sections makes an exception that if the individual or the HUF is required to get his/its accounts audited u/s.44AB for the preceding financial year, on the basis of turnover-criterion, then the said individual/HUF would be required to comply with the provisions of TDS.
Again section 194C and 194J provide that if the individual/ HUF is making a payment for personal purpose, then TDS provisions are not applicable. Thus, when a businessman is making a payment to a doctor/ lawyer, etc. for personal matters (non-business), no tax needs to be deducted.
The unfairness lies in not providing similar exemption in section 194A, 194H, 194I. Therefore, if a businessman with tax audit makes personal borrowings for buying a house, he may be required to deduct tax on interest. So also, on brokerage for sale/purchase of house. The same difficulty may arise for rent.
Difficulties in respect of section 195 are too well known. A typical case of an individual buying a house from a non-resident — entails so much of a nightmarish exercise! Either to comply with all formalities for just one single transaction or to obtain exemption u/s.195(2)/ 195(3), involves tremendous hardship.
It can be well understood that the main intention of the statute, to exclude individual and HUF from complying with the requirements for TDS u/s.194C and 194J, was to cover only business transactions and to exclude personal transactions from the ambit of TDS. However, the same logic is not made applied in case of sections 194A, 194H and 194I.
Nevertheless, there is some solace to the individuals and HUF viz. non-applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable to any business expense, thus saving the personal expense. But there is an exception to this solace — section 25 which disallows the deduction of interest on housing loan made to a non-resident if TDS requirements are not fulfilled.
The test for deciding, whether individuals and HUFs have to comply with the provisions of TDS, is based on the turnover of the business or professional receipts (same limit as for tax audit u/s.44AB) (i.e., 60 lakh for business and 15 lakh for profession)? However, is it fair that this turnover must be a conclusive criterion for deciding TDS requirement?
Further even compliance procedure of TDS viz. taking TAN, deducting and making TDS payment, filing quarterly returns, issuing TDS certificates, can prove to be extremely cumbersome for individuals and HUFs.
Solution:
One solution that can be thought of may be to lay down a separate criterion which is not based on limits laid down in section 44AB for deciding the TDS compliance by individual or HUF. For instance, the monetary limit for applicability of TDS can be gross payments of Rs.1 crore for individuals and HUFs.
Also, similar exclusion (as in section 194J and 194C) should be provided in case of section 194A, 194H, 194I. Hence, in case of personal expenses none of the provisions dealing with TDS should not apply to individuals and HUFs.
