Central Coal Fields Limited, Rajrappa V. DCIT, Bokaro

ITA 101/RAN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4366 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A KUJUR
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI CIRCUI T BENCH, RANCHI (BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, HONBLE A.M.& SHR I D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE J.M.) I.T.A.NOS.101 TO 107/RAN/2012 : ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2005-2006 TO 2011-2012 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, RAJARAPPA VS- DC IT, TDS CIRCLE, B.S.CITY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.PODDAR WITH SHRI M.K.CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.KUJUR, D.R. . DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 02.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09.05.2013 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR ALL DATED 22.05.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE COMMON GROUNDS.. 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDIN G THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD. (IN SHORT DPCL), LATER NAME CHANGED TO EASTERN INDIA POWERTECH LTD. 2. FOR THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CI T(A) HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO, ON 08/02/1993, BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S DPCL, AS A CONTRACT FOR WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C(1) INSTEAD OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, AS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH AT IF THE SELLER OF GOODS, ALSO PURCHASES SOME GOODS FROM HIM, WILL NOT CHANGE THE VERY NATURE OF PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTION OF THE AGREEMENT. 4. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E M/S DPCL AFTER PURCHASE OF COAL WASHERY REJECTS FROM THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SUPPLIED BACK THE SAME COMMODITY AFTER ITS BENEFICIATION OR AFTER ITS MODI FICATION. RATHER ON ONE HAND M/S DPCL HAS PURCHASED COAL WASHERY REJECTS AND ON THE OTHER HAND SOLD ELECTRICITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2 5. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID AGREEMENT AS A CONTRACT FOR WORK BECAUSE THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS CO NSIDERED AS A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY THE JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRIC ITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, AS WELL AS BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT I.E. DLF POWER LTD. A ND THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW RENDERED BY JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 6. FOR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AC IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER COULD HAV E BEEN PASSED AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE 31 MARCH, 2011, BEFORE BAR OF ANY LIMI TATION PERIOD. 7. FOR THAT LD. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, BOKARO WAS UNJUST IFIED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/1A) AND RAISING DEMAND FOR TDS AND INTER EST ON 25.2.20 11, AFTER LAPSE OF UNREASONABLY LONG PERIOD OF MORE THAN 5 YE ARS, MORE SO AFTER LAPSE OF TIME BARRING PERIOD OF FILING OF RETURN BY THE DEDU CTEE AND WILL BE UNABLE TO CLAIM REFUND OR ADJUSTMENT OF TDS MADE BY THE APPEL LANT, AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 8. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REFERRING TO SECTIO N 194C(7)(IV)(E) INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1/10/2009 BECAUSE THE SAME RELATES TO OUTSOU RCING CONTRACT AND IT HAS NOT BEEN HELD ON FACTS THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS OUTSOURCING CONTRACT / AGREEMENT. 9. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT. THE DIRECTION GIVEN IS INCOR RECT AND UNJUSTIFIED. 10. FOR THAT, THE PROVISIONS S. 201(1A) IS INTENDED TO MAKE GOOD THE LOSS OF REVENUE SUFFERED BY THE REVENUE AS A RESULT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE DEDUCTEE DLF LTD. HAD PAID THE TAXES ALONGWITH INTE REST DUE ON THEIR INCOME AS PER THEIR RETURN, AS SUCH THE DEPARTMENT WAS DUL Y COMPENSATED IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY IN MAKING TAXES. MOREOVER, AGAIN CHARGING INTEREST ON THE APPELLANT, AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE CHARGING OF INTEREST ON THE SAME AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. 11. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF HONBLE ITAT TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR : I. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY MI/S . CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED , RAJRAPPA PROJECTS AND M/S. DLF POWER COMP ANY LIMITED (LATTER NAME CHANGE TO EASTERN INDIA POWERTECH LTD.) BE DEC LARED AS A PURCHASE AND 3 SALE AGREEMENT, NOT COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF W ORK AS THE DEFINED IN SECTION 194C. II. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A) BE DELETED, AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF INTEREST. III. THE ORDER PASSED IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IV. ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON 08.02.1993 WITH DLP POWER COMPANY LTD. TO BUILD AND OPERATE A CAPTIVE POWER PLANTS BASED UPON FLUDIZED BED COMBUSTION TECHNOLOG Y. THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BUY ELECT RICITY FROM M/S. DPCL AT THE TARIFF RATES AND WILL SELL WASHERY COAL REJECTS TO M/S.DPC L AT THE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSURED TO EVACUATE THE MINI MUM GUARANTEE OF THE ELECTRICITY FOR ITS OWN USE OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. THE DPCL WAS ALSO FREE TO SELL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED TO ANY OTHER PERSON. INSPECTI ON OF THE TDS PROVISION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 22.05.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD. WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE WORK AS DENIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND ACCORDINGLY IN HIS OPINION, THE AS SESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. DPCL AND TREATED THE AS SESSEE IN DEFAULT AND THE DEMAND WAS RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AS WELL AS T HE INTEREST WAS CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A). THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.02.1993 BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DPCL WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE WORK AS DENIED UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS OU T OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. DPCL BUT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTHAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD . VS- CIT 293 ITR 226, TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HENC EFORTH MAKE THE DEMAND IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF TDS UNDER SECTION 201(1) AS TH E DEDUCTEE M/S. DPCL HAS FILED THE RETURN AND PAID THE TAX DUE ON THEIR RETURN AND ACCORDINGLY THE DEMAND MADE 4 UNDER SECTION 201(1) WAS DELETED. BUT THE CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE BOARDS C IRCULAR NO.275/201/95-IT(B) DATED 19.01.1997 TILL THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BY M/S . DPCL. NOW ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOWING QUESTI ON ARISES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL :- I) WHETHER THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.02.1993 BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD. IS IN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURC HASE AND SALE OF WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C; II) WHETHER THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201( 1A) HAS BEEN LEGALLY CHARGED AND WERE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS INV OLVED . 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND THE DPCL IS THE CONTRACT OF SALE AND PURCHASE AND NOT WORKS CONTRAC T. THE POWER UNIT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY DPCL. THE DPCL IS FREE TO DISPOSE OF ELECTRICITY, AFTER IT IS VERIFIED BY CIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED IT A WORK S CONTRACT BECAUSE IN THE BILLS THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED KEEP-BACK THAT WAS MERE LY A SCHEME OF THE PAYMENT, AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREED BETWEEN THE PAR TIES. THE DPCL WAS NOT MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODUCT, ACCORDING TO REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY USING THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM SUCH CUSTOMER. THE DPCL WAS SIMPLY GENERATING THE POWER BY USING THE COAL, GAS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELIANCE WAS MADE ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. & ANOTHER VS- CBDT AND ANOTHER 3 20 ITR 526 WHICH HELD THAT THE WORD WORK IN SECTION 194C WAS LIMITED TO ANY WORK, WHICH, ON BEING CARRIED OUT, CULMINATES IN A PRODUCT OR END-RESULT. THE WOR D WORK IN SECTION 194C WOULD EXTEND ONLY TO THE SERVICE CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY IN CLUDED IN SECTION 194C BY WAY OF EXPLANATION III AND WOULD APPLY TO PAYMENTS FOR CAR RYING OUT THE WORK SUCH AS CONSTRUCTING BUILDING OR DAMS OR LAYING OF ROADS OR AIR FIELDS OR RAILWAY LINES OR ERECTION OR INSTALLATION OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY . IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE ABOVE SUCH 5 ISSUED WAS RAISED, EVEN THOUGH 18 YEARS HAVE EXPIRE D. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R. ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT DATED 01.01.2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3109 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF DLF POWER LTD .-VS- CCL THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD . IS A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TOWARDS THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY DATED 17.05.2006 IN APPEAL NO.166 OF 2005 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DLF POWER CO. LTD. IN WHICH ALSO THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FI LED LATE BY 28 DAYS. THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY WAS FI LED ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE), CCL. AFTER HEARING THE LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO FILE THE APPEALS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE D ATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS FROM BOTH TH E SIDES AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE AGREEMENT DATED 0 8.02.1993 BETWEEN COAL INDIA LTD. AND M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD., WE NOTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WILL APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND DLF POWER CO. LTD. IS AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE POWER AS WELL AS AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE COAL WASTE. IT IS NOT AN AGREEMENT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK BETWEEN THE DLF POWER CO. LTD. AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS AND SUBSIDIARY OF CIL, G OVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT DATED 08.02.1993 WI TH M/S. DLF POWER CO. LTD. ON BUILT OWN AND OPERATE PRINCIPLE. THE LAND REQUIRE D FOR THE SAME WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LEASEHOLD BASIS. UNDER THE AGREEMEN T, DPCL HAS TO ARRANGE FINANCE 6 AND DESIGN, PROCURE, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN FLUDIZED BED COMBUSTION BOILER BASED THERMAL POWER STATIONS INCLUDING NECESSARY RO ADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COAL TRANSPORT, ASH DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY AND HOUSING, ETC. AT THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS FOR GENERATION OF 10 MEGAWATT POWER WITH THE CAPACITY O F FURTHER EXPANSION TO 20 MEGAWATT POWER. ALL THE MACHINERY ETC. WERE INSTALL ED BY DPCL. THE AGREEMENT PERIOD IS FOR 30 YEARS WHICH WAS RENEWABLE FOR 20 Y EARS ON MUTUALLY AGREED TERMS. THE DPCL GUARANTEED UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO COMMISSI ON ALL THE THREE POWER STATIONS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME FROM THE ZERO DA TE AND THE PLANTS WERE TO BE TREATED AS COMMISSIONED FROM THE DATE OF LOAD BUILT-UP OF 2 .5 MEGAWATT WHICH HAS TO BE BUILT UP UPTO 10 MEGAWATT (45 DAYS OF COMMISSIONING OF EA CH PLANT) AT RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS. UNDER THE AGREEMENT, CIL WAS BOUND TO PU RCHASE ELECTRIC ENERGY AS GUARANTEED AT THE RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS CORRESPONDIN G TO MAXIMUM DEMAND OF 10 MEGAWATT. THE PAYMENT OF ENERGY HAS TO BE PAID BY C IL TO DPCL, AFTER ADJUSTING THE COST OF REJECTS (BASED ON DAILY AVERAGE GCV IN K.CA LR/KG. OF REJECTS AND PRICE OF REJECTS PER TONNE) AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. THE ENERGY HAS TO BE MEASURED BY METERS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADJUSTMENTS, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE AT THE END OF EACH MONTH. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, WHEN DPCL IS A BLE TO GENERATE POWER, ALL THE POWER GENERATED BY DPCL SHALL BE EVACUATED BY THE A SSESSEE EITHER FOR ITS OWN REQUIREMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND DPCL SHALL BE PAID BY THE CIL, AS PER THE METER READING AT THE APPLICABLE TARIFF FOR THE RECO RDED UNITS. THE DPCL HAS TO BE PAID ON PER UNIT BASIS AT THE PRE-DETERMINED RATES. SIMI LARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE PAID BY DPCL IN RESPECT OF FUELS, WASHERY REJECT AT THE PRE -DETERMINED RATE WHICH IS GIVEN UNDER CLAUSE 1.14 OF THE AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO MENT IONED THAT THE PRICE WILL REMAIN FIRM FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE POWER SUPPLY BY DPCL, SO LONG AS TARIFF INCLUSIVE OF FUEL COST ELEMENT IS RS.1.20 PER KWH. THE PRICE ADJUSTMENT HAS TO BE MADE ON MONTHLY BASIS ON THE B ASIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE REJECTS. IN CASE IT FALLS BELOW GCV OF 1500 KCAL/KG., DPCL H AS TO MAKE ITS OWN ARRANGEMENT FOR LOADING/UNLOADING/TRANSPORTATION/ST ORAGE OF REJECTS FROM SOURCE AT WASHERY HEAD/ STOCK YARD TO THE POWER PLANT SITE AT THEIR COST. UNDER CLAUSE 1.18, 7 CHARGES PAYABLE FOR SUPPLY OF ENERGY TO THE ASSESSE E FROM THESE POWER STATIONS ARE ALSO GIVEN. THE TARIFF VARIATION IS ALSO GIVEN DUE TO VARIATION OF THE FUEL COST AS WELL AS TAX/LEVIES APPLICABLE TO THE POWER GENERATION/SA LES. 6.1 FROM THE READING OF ALL THESE CLAUSES OF THE AG REEMENT, IT IS APPARENT THAT DPCL HAS MADE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT FOR SETTING UP THE PLANTS AND HAS TO RUN IT AT ITS OWN RISK WITH ITS OWN MANPOWER AND MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSURED TO EVACUATE THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE OF THE ELECTRICITY F OR ITS OWN USE OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. M/S. DPCL ALSO IS FREE TO SELL THE ELECTRI CITY GENERATED TO ANY OTHER PERSON, IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVACUATE THE SAME. IT IS NOT A CASE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR WORK. THE AGREEMENT, IN OUR OPINION, REPRESENTS THE SALE OF THE REJECTS, WASHERY AS WELL AS PURCHASE OF THE ELE CTRICITY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT TERMS ALSO CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IS CLEARLY A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. 6.2 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3019 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S.DLF POWER COMPANY LTD. RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 01.01.2009. IN THIS ORDER, THE PURPORTED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY IN APPEAL NO.166 OF 2005 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 11.05.2006 HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND M/S. DLF POWER COMPANY LTD. TO BE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REVENUE THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED I NTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DPCL IS NOT A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND IS AN AG REEMENT FOR THE WORK. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A REVERSION FOR CARR YING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE CONTRACTEE FIRM PURCHASES AND SELL. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW I N HOLDING THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DLF POWE R COMPANY LTD. IS A AGREEMENT 8 FOR WORK AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE APP LICABLE. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE, THEREFORE, WE ANNU L THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- [D.T.GARASIA] [P.K.BANSAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 9 TH MAY, 2013 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. .CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, RAJARAPPA 2. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, B.S.CITY 3. C.I.T.(A), 4. THE .C.I.T., 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, [MST, SR.PS] SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON T OUR) ITAT, RANCHI