JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. Kumar J.-The Revenue has preferred this appeal against order passed by Tribunal holding that hiring of cabs for purpose of carrying on its business by assessee, do not amount to contract to carry out work and, accordingly, hire charges paid is not covered by provisions of section 194C of Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly, there was no obligation on part of assessee to deduct tax under section 194C of Act. assessee is engaged in business of operation of tourist taxies. assessee also had hired taxies from owners, to carry on its business. assessee had deducted tax on payments made to such taxi owners. said TDS deduction was remitted, according to Assessing Officer, beyond due date. assessee furnished particulars of payments made. Still assessing authority disallowed expenses of Rs. 6,78,28,696 under section 40(a)(ia) of Act. Aggrieved by said order, assessee preferred appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was contended before first appellate authority by assessee that remittance of TDS amount was made well before completion of assessment year and, therefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of Act was called for. first appellate authority negated contention of assessee that there was no obligation on part of assessee to deduct tax at source and, therefore, disallowance by assessing authority of said amount paid to customers is unjustified. assessee preferred appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal has found favour with said argument and it held that assessee had hired cabs for purpose of carrying on its business and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was contract to carry out work and, accordingly, hire charges paid, were not covered under provisions of section 194C of Act. In coming to said conclusion, Tribunal has relied on judgment of Madras High Court. Aggrieved by said order, Revenue is in appeal. following two substantial questions of law were framed for consideration at time of admission: "(i) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee is not bound to deduct TDS as provisions of section 194C are not attracted as no agreement was entered into by assessee with other operators, when assessee has admitted applicability of section 194C and tax was deducted at source? (ii) Whether Tribunal was correct in proceeding to examine applicability of section 194C of Act when controversy was with respect to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of Act?" We have heard learned counsel for parties. This court had occasion to consider said substantial question of law in case of Smt. J. Rama v. CIT reported in [2012] 344 ITR 608 (Karn) where it was held as under (page 611): "In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is necessary to bear in mind admitted facts: assessee is individual deriving income from hiring of vehicles. Under written agreement, assessee is providing vehicles to one of its customers, M/s. Mahindra Transport Solutions group. Clause 5 of written agreement entered into between them stipulates that provision of services would involve providing vehicles owned by assessee or associates of assessee or agents, for transportation of Employees of Thomson Corporation (International) P. Ltd. material on record discloses that assessee is owning fleet of vehicles. That is not sufficient to meet their obligations. Therefore, assessee hired vehicles from owners of vehicles. There is no written agreement entered into between assessee and such individual owners. It is those vehicles hired in aforesaid manner which are utilised for performing contract entered into between assessee and its customers. In absence of any material placed by assessee, only inference that can be drawn from facts of this case is that assessee has utilised vehicles taken on lease to perform written contract entered into between assessee and various customers. Out of transportation charges received under aforesaid written contract, substantial portion has been paid to various owners of vehicles towards transportation charges. Though ground is taken that such payment is not in excess of Rs. 20,000 and, therefore, there is no obligation to deduct TDS, material on record discloses that total amount paid towards transportation charges is roughly about Rs. 79,45,225. In absence of any particulars, it cannot be said that there was no liability to deduct tax on that score. Law does not stipulate existence of written contract as condition precedent for payment of TDS. contract may be in writing or it may be oral but liability to pay tax arises when recipient of said amount receives payment in excess of Rs. 20,000. Second proviso to section 194C which is attracted to facts of this case makes it very clear that when individual or Hindu undivided family whose total sales from business or profession carried on by him in excess of monetary limit specified under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 44AB during financial year immediately preceding financial year in which such sum is credited or paid to account of sub-contractor, shall be liable to deduct income-tax under sub-section. It is not in dispute that turnover of assessee exceeds monetary limit specified under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 44AB. Therefore, liability to deduct tax arises under said proviso to sub- contractor from whom vehicles are hired and said amount payable to sub-contractor is in excess of Rs. 20,000. Therefore, three authorities have concurrently held that transaction in question is transport contract. liability to deduct out of money paid to sub-contractors does arise. Immediately, TDS is not deducted and said amount is not paid to authorities. Therefore, claim for deduction under section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted and authorities were justified in disallowing said deduction and treating said amount as income of assessee and claiming tax on that amount." It is submitted that special leave petition preferred against said judgment has been dismissed. In light of aforesaid judgment, order of Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is hereby setaside. material on record discloses that said plea is only alternative plea. It further shows that TDS was deducted and paid to Department belatedly. That was reason for not allowing deduction. learned counsel for assessee submits that it has been paid within time prescribed before due date for filing return, which is permissible in law. Unfortunately, none of authorities have gone into this question. Therefore, it is necessary to remit matter back to assessing authority to find out whether payment of TDS paid by assessee is within time prescribed under law. If it is within time, then assessee is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we pass following order: (a) appeal is allowed. (b) Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. (c) matter is remitted back to assessing authority to find out whether TDS payment is within time and assessee is entitled for benefit in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Janani Tours and Resorts (P.) Ltd