S. 194H TDS not applicable on Charges for use of Swipe Machine paid to banks
Assessee was engaged in the business of trading in readymade garments. A letter was received from the Assessing Officer, TDS Circle Mumbai that the respondent-assessee had paid 3commission’ to HDFC on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards. Survey under Section 1 33A of the Act had been conducted on HDFC, who had provided card swiping machines to retail merchants, including the respondent-assessee. A credit card holder could make payment by swiping the credit card on the said machines. The details of the bill amount, etc. were thereupon forwarded to the acquiring bank, which is the bank which had provided the machine, i.e. HDFC in this case, which then made payment to the respondent assessee. The payment made to the respondent-assessee was after withholding or deducting the fee payable to HDFC. Thereafter, the acquiring bank, i.e. HDFC recovered the bill amount from the issuing bank of the customer.
The Assessing Officer held that the amount earned by the acquiring bank, i.e. HDFC in this case, was in the nature of “commission” and should have been subjected to deduction of tax at source @ 10% under Section 194H of the Act. As the commission had not been subjected to tax at source, Rs.44,65,654/- should be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as this amount had been claimed as an expenditure by the assessee.
The aforesaid opinion was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who held that the transaction in question was in the nature of bill discounting by the acquiring bank, who had paid the bill amount after deducting the commission payable to them.
It is apparent from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (supra) that clause (i) of the Explanation to Section 194H of the Act has been read as exhaustive and not as expansive. This is the reason why the Supreme Court in the short order drew distinction between a transaction of sale and a contract of agency and also between discount and commission/brokerage. Otherwise, the expression “any service rendered in the course of buying or selling of goods”possibly would have encompassed and included the “discount” given to the stamp vendors, who render service during the course of buying and selling of goods, i.e. the stamp papers.
Contention could be raised that payment received or receivable directly or indirectly for any services in course of buying or selling of goods need not arise out of a contract of agency or from a relationship of a principal and an agent. The said contention has to be rejected in view of the aforesaid judgments, which positively hold that the three separate conditions when tax at source is required to be deducted would only apply provided the recipient is acting on behalf of another, i.e. relationship of a principal and an agent exists and not otherwise. This interpretation has been consistent and uniformly applied while interpreting clause (i) of the Explanation to Section 1 94H of the Act. Appropriate in this regard would be to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Idea Cellular Limited, (2010) 325 ITR 148 (Delhi) wherein Explanation clause (i) to Section 194H of the Act had come up for consideration and on interpretation it was held that it would apply only if payment was received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person for (i) services rendered (not being professional) and (ii) for any services in the course of buying or selling of goods or in relation to any transaction relating to an asset, valuable article or thing. The judgment records that the counsel for both the parties, i.e. the Revenue and the assessee, had agreed that the element of agency was to be established in all the aforesaid circumstances (see page 156 placitum 9 of the ITR citation). Thus, this contention if raised would not stand judicial scrutiny on the principles of consistency and certainty. Even otherwise, the view expounded and accepted is plausible, besides being reasonable.
Applying the above cited case law to the factual matrix of the present case, we feel that Section 1 94H of the Act would not be attracted. HDFC was not acting as an agent of the respondent-assessee. Once the payment was made by HDFC, it was received and credited to the account of the respondent-assessee. In the process, a small fee was deducted by the acquiring bank, i.e. the bank whose swiping machine was used. On swiping the credit card on the swiping machine, the customer whose credit card was used, got access to the internet gateway of the acquiring bank resulting in the realisation of payment. Subsequently, the acquiring bank realised and recovered the payment from the bank which had issued the credit card. HDFC had not undertaken any act on “behalf” of the respondent-assessee. The relationship between HDFC and the respondent-assessee was not of an agency but that of two independent parties on principal to principal basis. HDFC was also acting and equally protecting the interest of the customer whose credit card was used in the swiping machines. It is noticeable that the bank in question or their employees were not present at the spot and were not associated with buying or selling of goods as such. Upon swiping the card, the bank made payment of the bill amount to the respondentassessee. Thus, the respondent assessee received the sale consideration. In turn, the bank in question had to collect the amount from the bankers of the credit card holder. The Bank had taken the risk and also remained out of pocket for sometime as there would be a time gap between the date of payment and recovery of the amount paid.
The amount retained by the bank is a fee charged by them for having rendered the banking services and cannot be treated as a commission or brokerage paid in course of use of any services by a person acting on behalf of another for buying or selling of goods. The intention of the legislature is to include and treat commission or brokerage paid when a third person interacts between the seller and the buyer as an agent and thereby renders services in the course of buying and/or selling of goods. This happens when there is a middleman or an agent who interacts on behalf of one of the parties, helps the buyer/seller to meet, or participates in the negotiations or transactions resulting in the contract for buying and selling of goods. Thus, the requirement of an agent and principal relationship. This is the exact purport and the rationale behind the provision. The bank in question is not concerned with buying or selling of goods or even with the reason and cause as to why the card was swiped. It is not bothered or concerned with the quality, price, nature, quantum etc. of the goods bought/sold. The bank merely provides banking services in the form of payment and subsequently collects the payment. The amount punched in the swiping machine is credited to the account of the retailer by the acquiring bank, i.e. HDFC in this case, after retaining a small portion of the same as their charges. The banking services cannot be covered and treated as services rendered by an agent for the principal during the course of buying or selling of goods as the banker does not render any service in the nature of agency. Source-JDS Apparels Private Limited vs CIT (Delhi High Court) , Income Tax Appeal 608/2014, Date of Decision: 18th November, 2014