DCIT(TDS), TDS Cirlce-2(1), hyd, Hyderabad V. PLR Projects (P) Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 122/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5996 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: PAVAN KUMAR CHAKRA
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Bonafide belief; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion
• Section: 273B; 133A; 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 THE DCIT (TDS), TDS CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD 500 034. PAN AADCP9069L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SMT. SUMAN MALIK FOR ASSESSEE : MR. PAVAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-8, HYDERABAD AN D THEY PERTAIN TO THE A.YS. 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT REFER TO THE GROUN DS WHICH WERE PERMITTED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THOUG H THESE APPEALS WERE POSTED ON 08.02.2016, THE REVENUE DID NOT CHOOSE TO OBTAIN THE GROUNDS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE COMMI SSIONER. IN FACT THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE US ARE ALSO NOT VERY CLEAR. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SIGNED BY THE ITO INDICATE THAT FOR B OTH THE YEARS ONLY ONE SET OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PREPARE D, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE : 2 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY L EVIED U/S. 271C FOR THE AYS. 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT PE NALTY U/S. 271C IS LEVIABLE FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STATUS OF ORDERS PASSED U/S. 20 1(1) AND U/S. 201(A). 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S CIRC ULAR NO.275/201/95/IT(B) DATED 29.01.1997, WHICH WAS ALSO SQUARELY UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN COCO-COLA BEVERAGES LTD. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2.1. THE DCIT (TDS) IS THE APPELLANT HEREIN BUT HE DI D NOT CHOOSE TO FILE ANY GROUNDS UNDER HIS SIGNATURE. 3. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON CIVIL CO NTRACT WORKS. SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 26.03.2009 TO VERIFY THE COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS . 4. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS FA CTS STATED IN THE FIRST APPEAL ARE STATED IN BRIEF. IN RESPE CT OF F.Y. 2007-08, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST O N LOANS TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND VEHICLES ON HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE ABOVE I NTEREST PAYMENT. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE LIABILITY IT WAS STATE D THAT NO LIABILITY AROSE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY 3 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. CBDT IN THIS REGARD TO STATE THAT SECTION 194A IS NOT APPL ICABLE ON FINANCE CHARGES PAID ON HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THE AGREED AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE HIRER DESERVES TO BE CONSIDERED AS PERIODICAL INSTALMENTS AND IT CANNOT BE CHARACTERISE D AS INTEREST. 5. THE DCIT OBSERVED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS THE CBDT VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO.738 D ATED 25.03.1998 CLARIFIED THE POSITION WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT FINANCE CHARGES PAID ON HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS SHO ULD BE TREATED AS INTEREST. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO ANOTHER CIR CULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREIN IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT IN ORD ER TO SEE AS TO WHETHER FINANCE CHARGES CONSTITUTE INTEREST OR RENTA L, THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION MUST BE VERIFIED. BASED O N THE ABOVE CIRCULARS THE DCIT OBSERVED THAT IN THE INSTANT CA SE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD TAKEN LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY/VEHICLES AND THE COMPANY IS PAYING LOAN IN MONTHLY INSTALMENTS KNOWN AS EMIS WHICH CONSISTS OF LOAN AND I NTEREST. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE MACHINERY/ VEHI CLE IS NOT WITH THE FINANCIER AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION IS A FINAN CIAL TRANSACTION. AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A OF THE I.T. ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH OBLIGATES THE ASSE SSEE TO DEDUCT AND REMIT TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID TO THE COMPAN IES, LENDING THE LOANS. THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT DEDUCTED A ND REMITTED TDS ON INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.1.25 CRORES THE AMOUNT OF TDS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 19 4A OF THE ACT WAS WORKED-OUT TO RS.14,18,779. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED AND REMITTED THE TDS, INTEREST UNDER SECTION 20 1(1A) WAS LEVIED BY THE DCIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS.44.18 CRORES TOWARDS CONTRACTS IT IS LIABLE TO DEDUC T TAX AT 4 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. SOURCE, THE TDS ATTRACTED UNDER SECTION 194C IS RS.50,14 ,005. THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED AND REMITTED THE SAID SUM WITH S OME DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED THE INTEREST PAYABLE U NDER SECTION 201(1A) AT RS.1,25,686. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE TAX ON THIS PAYMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME AND IF FOUND CORRECT TO DELETE THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IN V IEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD., 293 ITR 226. 7. AS THE THINGS STOOD THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT M/S. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE P. LTD., AND M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., HAD CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 1 97 EMPOWERING THE DEDUCTOR TO DEDUCT TAX AT CONCESSIONAL RAT E. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT AS THE DEMAND WOULD BE DELETED NO P ENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE DEMA ND AROSE DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND HENCE THERE WAS NO M ALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, SO AS TO LEVY PENA LTY. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PLEA OF THE CONCESSIONAL CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 197 HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR AT THE APPEAL STAGE AN D HENCE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED NOW AT THE PENALTY STAGE. MOREOVER , THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CLAIMED THAT ALL THE TAXES HAD BEEN P AID BY THE 5 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. DEDUCTEES IN THEIR OWN RETURNS AND HENCE NO TAX SHOULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE DEDUCTOR WHEREAS A DIFFERENT STAND WAS TAKEN NOW THAT ONLY CONCESSIONAL RATE WAS TO BE APPLIED WHIL E MAKING TDS AND THUS THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRADICTING HIMSELF. 9. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COCA COLA BEVERA GES P. LTD., (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE AND EVEN IF THE TAX RECOVE RED BECOMES NIL, THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FO R THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH HE FAILED TO DEDUCT BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE RELEVANT TDS PROVISIONS. THIS IS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE F ACT THAT THE DEDUCTEES HAD ALREADY PAID THE TAX. THUS, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE OF TH E ACT. 10. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF TAX THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, IN THE CASE OF NAGARJUNA INVESTMENT TR UST 65 ITD 17, CLARIFIED THE ISSUE OF INTEREST PAYMENT ON HIRE PUR CHASE TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE CAN NO LONGER TAKE RECOURSE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND DEDUCTIBILITY ISSUE TO E SCAPE PENALTY. 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 271C O F THE ACT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A ) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND IF FOU ND TO BE CORRECT, TO DELETE THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 201 (1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS YET TO PASS AN ORDER AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A). THUS THERE WAS NO ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT TREATIN G THE ASSESSEE AS IN DEFAULT. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INI TIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT AND ISSUED DEMAND 6 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONTRARY T O LAW. THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IS A VAILABLE UPTO 31.03.2014 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE PENALTY ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E ON 07.04.2014 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER THE APPREHENSION THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275. IT WAS ALSO CONTEND ED THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UNLESS IT WA S SOMEWHERE PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED WHEREAS, IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE SO-CALLED ORDER WAS DISPATCHED FROM THE OFF ICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY AFTER 31.03.2014 AND THEREFORE , IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275 OF THE ACT. 12. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING PASSED AN ORDER ON 19.07.2012 DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND TO DELETE TH E DEMAND IF FOUND CORRECT, TILL A FRESH ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COULD NOT HAVE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT. 13. ON MERITS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALL FINANCE CHARGES PAID DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT ON THE PAYMENT MADE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE HIRE PURCHASE PAYMENTS ARE IN THE FORM OF FINAN CE CHARGES AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A DO NOT GET ATTRACTED; APART FROM THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CBDT DATED 25.01 .1981 AND 16.11.1981 THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE 7 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE IN WHICH EVENT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH INTURN WAS FORWARDED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSEE THEREUPON FILED DETAILED ITE M-WISE REPLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE MAIN CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT HE WAS REGULARLY PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND COOPERATING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ATTENDING AND SUBMITTING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND HE HAD NO INTENTION TO AVOID OR PREVENT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FROM PASSING ANY ORDER AND SINCE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION WAS NOT PASSED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INITIATED U NDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE M AIN PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAVING BEEN PA SSED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT AND THUS CANCELLED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7.1 GROUNDS NOS.2 TO 7, 10 & 12 RELATES TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271C. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ARS O F THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO STATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUND S OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, PENALTY ORDER U/S.271C AND REMAND REPORT HAVE BEEN PERUSED. AS SEEN FROM THE R EPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WAS P ASSED GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II. HYDERA BAD IN ITA NO.0406/CIT(A)-II, HYD/2011-12, DATED 19.07.2012. I N THIS CONTEXT THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IN PARA 8.7 IS R EPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 8.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTY WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ONLY ON 0710412014 WHICH IS AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF TH E 8 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. ACT, CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE SAID ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT DATED 30/03/2014 IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE SAID ORDE R OF PENALTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS A S MENTIONED ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY REQUIRED AND PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR TO CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON, FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE . IT WOULD ALSO BE PERTINENT TO BRING TO NOTE THAT SE CTION 271C READS AS FOLLOWS :- 'PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 271C. (1) IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO- (A) DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B; OR (B) PAY THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER- (I) SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115-O; OR (II) THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 194B, THEN SUCH PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY; A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH SUCH PERSON FAILED TO DEDUCT OR PAY AS AFORESAID. (2) ANY PENALTY IMPOSABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SH ALL BE IMPOSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. 7.2 FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTE I.E., S ECTION 271C REPRODUCED SUPRA, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY PROVISION COULD BE INVOKED ONLY IF 271C(1)(A) OR 271C(1)(B) A RE INFRINGED. CHAPTER XVII-B DEALS WITH COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF TAX - DEDUCTION OF SOURCES WHICH ARE STATED IN 2 71C(1)(A). SECTIONS 201(1) AND 20L (LA) ARE PART OF CHAPTER XV II-B. IN THE 9 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. ABSENCE OF ORDERS UNDER 201(1) AND 201(LA), THE QUE STION OF LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271C WOULD NOT OBVIOUSLY ARISE. 7.3. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE, PLAIN READING OF THE STATUE IS ESSENTIAL AND THE RATIO OF FOLLOWING DECI SIONS OF THE APEX COURT ARE BROUGHT TO NOTE. 7.4. THE OBSERVATIONS OF ROWLATT, J IN THE CASE O F CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE VS., INDIAN REVENUE COMMISSIO NER ARE RELEVANT. IN A TAXING STATUTE ONE HAS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF INTENDMENT THERE IS PRESUMPTION AS TO A TAX. NOTHING IS TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED. ONE CAN ONLY LOOK FAIRLY ON THE L ANGUAGE USED.' THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJAX PRODUCTS LTD., (55 ITR 741) REFERS TO THIS JUDGMENT . AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE MATRIX OF ISSUES IT IS NOTED THA T SO LONG AS THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, RE SORT TO ANY INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS TO UNFOLD THE LEGISLATIVE IN TENT BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE. THE SUPPOSED INTENTION OF THE LEGISL ATURE CANNOT THEN BE APPEALED TO WHITTLE DOWN THE STATUTO RY LANGUAGE WHICH IS OTHERWISE CLEAR. 7.5. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS., TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR (1975), 101-ITR-764-(SC), THE APEX COURT OBSERVED TH AT . ' IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBI GUOUS, AND IF TWO INTERPRETATION ARE REASONABLY POSSIBLE, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO DISCARD THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN ORDER TO MEET A POSSIBLE INJUSTICE. ' 7.6. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF KESHAVJI RAVJI & CO., VS CIT, 49 TAXMAN-87 (SC), THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT 'AS LONG AS THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTORY LANG UAGE, RESORT TO ANY INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS TO UNFOLD THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE. THE SUPPO SED INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE APPEALED TO WHITTLE DOWN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WHICH IS OTHERWISE UNAMBIGUOUS. IF THE INTENDMENT IS NOT IN THE WORDS USED, IT IS NOWHERE ELSE. THE NEED FOR INTERPRETATION ARI SES WHEN THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE ARE, ON THEIR OWN TER MS, AMBIVALENT AND DO MANIFEST THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.' CONSIDERING THE FACTS, ISSUES AND 10 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.2 TO 7, 10 & 12 ARE ALLOWED. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DO NOT INDICATE AS TO WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE US B Y THE ITO - WHO SIGNED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE CONTENTION IS THA T THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX IRRESPEC TIVE OF THE STATUS OF ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1 A) AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD CIRCULAR DATED 29.01.1997 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND IT WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD., (SUPRA). 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AS WELL AS THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MATTER. THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD., IS ON THE ISSUE THAT WHEN THE OTHER PARTY PAID THE TAX ON THE INC OME RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, TAX CANNOT BE COLLECTED O NCE AGAIN FROM THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) INDICATE THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C WAS DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSISTING ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AND HENCE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271C COULD NOT HAVE BEEN I NITIATED. HOWEVER, THE ITO HAD RAISED A GROUND, VIDE GROUND NO .3, WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) SINCE HE CANCELLED THE PENALTY AT THE THRESHOLD ON THE GROUND THA T THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) DO NOT STA ND SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDERS AND FRESH ORDERS WERE 11 ITA.NO.122 & 123/HYD/2016 M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. NOT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). NEITHER THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC GROUND ON TH IS ASPECT EXCEPT, AT BEST IT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO GROUND NO.2, NOR AN Y CASE LAW WAS REFERRED TO ON THIS ASPECT BY THE LD. D.R. TO C ONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT ALSO APPEARS THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IDENTICAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE LD. D.R. HA VING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11.2016. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE DCIT (TDS), TDS CIRCLE-2(1), O/O. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 4 TH FLOOR, D BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD 500 034. 2. M/S. PLR PROJECTS (P) LTD., PLOT NO.130, 3B, 3 RD FLOOR, INWINEX TOWERS, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD . 3. CIT(A)-8, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (TDS), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.