ACIT., Circle-14(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. M/s Idea Cellular Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1663/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2492 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P CHANDRA SEKHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK G DOSHI
• Keywords: Question of law; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 80C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, & 1667 /HYD/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-0 8, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 14(2), HYDERABAD. VS. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACB 2100P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767 & 1768/HYD/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-0 8, 2008-09 & 2009-10 IDEA CELLULAR LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACB 2100P VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 14(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P. CHANDRASEKHAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RONAK G. DOSHI DATE OF HEARING : 16-08-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-10-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO AYS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 AN D THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) II, HYDERABA D. ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED SIX APPEALS EACH, CONCERNING APPLICAB ILITY OF SECTION 201(1) AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE A CT. SINCE ISSUE IS COMMON, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY A COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. 2. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N PROVIDING MOBILE SERVICES BY PROVIDING PREPAID AND POSTPAID S IM CARDS TO ITS SUBSCRIBERS. IN SO FAR AS POSTPAID SIM CARDS ARE C ONCERNED, ASSESSEE ADMITTED APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4H OF THE ACT AND DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE D ISTRIBUTOR. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS PREPAID FACILITY IS CONCERNED, A SSESSEE SUPPLIED KITS/SIM CARDS ETC. THROUGH THE NETWORK OF DISTRIBU TORS WHO, IN TURN, SUPPLIES IT TO THE RETAILERS/ULTIMATE SUBSCRIBERS U PON VERIFYING THE CREDENTIALS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. WHEN THE KIT CONTA INING SIM CARD, RECHARGE COUPONS ETC. ARE SUPPLIED TO THE DISTRIBUT OR, ASSESSEE COLLECTS THE SUM IN ADVANCE AFTER DEDUCTING THE COM MISSION. FOR EXAMPLE, A PREPAID SIM WAS TO BE SOLD TO SUBSCRIBER AT RS. 100/-, BUT, ASSESSEE MAY SUPPLY THE SAME TO THE DISTRIBUTOR AT RS. 75/- AND THE DISTRIBUTOR, IN TURN, CAN SUPPLY TO THE RETAILERS/S UBSCRIBERS, WITHIN THE STIPULATED ZONE I.E., FOR AN AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD NO T EXCEED MRP. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 25/-, IN THE GIVEN EXAMPLE, IS TR EATED AS A COMMISSION PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTOR, ON WHICH, THE T DS OFFICER SOUGHT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THAT THE AGREEMEN T BETWEEN IT AND THE DISTRIBUTOR IS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASI S AND, HENCE, DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISTRIBUTOR CANNOT BE EQUA TED TO COMMISSION, SO AS TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 94H OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS A DEFAULTER U /S 201(1) OF THE ACT AND INTEREST WAS ALSO CHARGED U/S 201(1A) OF TH E ACT FOR NON- PAYMENT OF THE SAID SUM. 3. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 194H ARE NOT APPLICABLE, WAS REJECTED BY THE TDS OF FICER AS WELL AS CIT(A). ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DID NOT ENTERTAIN APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON MERITS IS JUSTIFIED AND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 3 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. 4. AS THE THINGS STOOD THUS, THE ALTERNATIVE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERA GES PVT. LTD., 293 ITR 226, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A DEFAUL TER SINCE THE DISTRIBUTORS HAVE FILED RETURNS AND OFFERED THE AMO UNT TO TAX AND CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 20 1(1A) OF THE ACT, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE AO IS DIRE CTED TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF TAXE S BY THE RECIPIENTS/PAYEES FROM THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM TH E APPELLANT AND GIVE CREDIT FOR THE SAME AND TAX THE BALANCE, I F ANY, UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND CHARGE INTEREST U/S 2 01(1A) OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE TAX WAS PAYABLE TO THE DATE ON WH ICH SUCH TAX WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE RECIPIENTS/PAYEES. 5. VIDE ORDER DATED 23/07/2013, THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE APEX COURT (SUPRA) DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN IN FORMATION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REFER TO THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE AO FOR THE AY 2004-05 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS CA LLED FOR: 1. RECEIPTS FROM M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD. IN THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND LEDGER COPY OF THE SAME FROM THE BOOKS OF THE DEDUCTEES. 2. PROOF OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR AY 200 4-05 BY THE DEDUCTEES ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULES REFLECTING THE R ECEIPTS FROM M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD. 3. AFFIDAVIT TO THE ABOVE EFFECT FROM THE DEDUCTEES . 5.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE ABOVE INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF RELIEF U/S 201(1) OF THE AC T AND MERELY FILED SOFT COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES, TH E RELIEF SOUGHT FOR WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE AO. 4 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHETHER DISTRIBUTOR S HAVE OFFERED FOR TAX THE DISCOUNT SO AVAILED AND IF IT IS FOUND THA T THEY FILED RETURN OF INCOME, TAXING THE SAME INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN COCO CO LA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,(SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE R ECIPIENT HAS PAID TAXES, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT RECOVER SHORTFALL OF T HE BASIC TAX DEDUCTIBLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING PROVIDED PAN OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, IT HAS THE MACHINERY IN PL ACE TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE RATHER THAN PLACING UNREASONA BLE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE RECIPIENTS HAVE OFFERED THE INCOME TO TAX. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT HAS TO BE APPLIED IN THE TRUE SPIRIT RATHER THAN EXPECTING AS SESSEE TO FURNISH, AFTER A GAP OF SO MANY YEARS, THE PROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE HANDS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS. 6.1 LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF JAGARAN PRAKASHAN LTD. VS. DCIT [2012] 345 ITR 288 (ALL.) TO SUBMIT THAT EVEN THOUGH A LIABIL ITY IS FASTENED ON ASSESSEE TOWARDS INTEREST IF IT IS SHOWN THAT RECIP IENTS FILED RETURNS AND OFFERED INCOME TO TAX, IT CANNOT AGAIN BE RECOV ERED FROM THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. RELIA NCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASH OF RAMAKRISHNA VEDANTA MATH VS. ITO, 24 TAXMANN.COM 29, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THA T SO LONG AS AN ASSESSEE FURNISHES REQUISITE/BASIC INFORMATION, AO CAN VERY WELL ASCERTAIN, RELATED FACTS ABOUT PAYMENT OF TAX ON IN COME OF THE RECIPIENT, DIRECTLY. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT SUCH AN EXERCISE BY THE AO IS NOT POSSIBLE, IN WHIC H EVENT, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT. IN THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE RATIO OF THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ICICI BANK LTD, 36 TAXMAN.COM 433, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PRIMARY R ESPONSIBILITY TO 5 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. PAY TAX IS ON DEDUCTEES AND ONLY UPON NON-PAYMENT O F TAX, VICARIOUS LIABILITY IS ON THE DEDUCTOR. ONCE THE BASIC INFORM ATION OF THE DEDUCTEES IS PROVIDED, IT IS FOR THE AO TO ASCERTAI N WHETHER THE RECEIPTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETU RNS. IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS. DCIT THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH OBSERVED THAT IT IS FOR THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE DECLARATIONS SINCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION AT ITS END. 7. LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF DED UCTEES IN THE INSTANT CASE AND VERIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF CASES OF DEDUCTEES, TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THEM OR NOT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK AT THIS STAGE AND HENCE, THE BEST C OURSE OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE TIME OF CREDIT /PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BEGINNING ITSELF, IN WHICH EVENT, I T WOULD HAVE PREVENTED VOLUMINOUS TASK OF VERIFICATION ON THE PA RT OF THE AO, THAT TOO, AFTER A LAPSE OF SEVERAL YEARS. HOWEVER, CIT(A ) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH FORM 26A I N ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 31ACB OF THE ACT AT THIS STAGE TO PROVE THAT T HE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT PROFI T BY DEDUCTEES AND TAXES WERE PAID. AO WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD, SHE OBSERVED AS UNDER: 5.2 THE NUMBER OF DEDUCTEES YEAR-WISE ARE AS UNDER: AY DEDUCTEES 2004-05 5 2005-06 17 2006-07 52 2007-08 98 2008-09 388 2009-10 611 VERIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF CASES OF DEDUCTEES AND TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELLANT ARE OFFERED TO TAX OR NOT IS ALMOST AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK. IT IS EXTREMELY D IFFICULT FOR THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THIS INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT AOS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE DEDUCTEES SPREAD ACROSS THE S TATE. THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN, TO DEDUCT TD S AT THE 6 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. TIME OF CREDIT/PAYMENT BY APPELLANT IN THE BEGINNIN G ITSELF. SUCH ACTION WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS VOLUMINOUS TASK OF VERIFICATION, THAT TOO AFTER LAPSE OF SEVERAL YEARS . IN THIS BACKGROUND, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) , THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT, IF H E FURNISHES CERTIFICATE FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN A PRESCRIBED FORM I.E., FORM NO.26A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 31ACB STATING TH AT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED IN ARRIVI NG AT PROFIT BY DEDUCTEES AND TAXES WERE PAID. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH SUCH CERTIFICATES FROM THE ACCO UNTANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT IN ALL SUCH CASES AND REDUCE THE LIABILITY U/S.201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BY STATING THAT AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT, ONUS IS UPON DEDUCT OR TO SATISFY THE OTHER CONDITIONS, I.E., THE DEDUCTEE HAS FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTING I TS INCOME, APART FROM PAYMENT OF TAX DUES ON THE INCOME SO DECLARED . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER. 8.1 ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A) AND THE MAIN PLANK OF ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IS THAT THE DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO FURNISH CERTIFICATE FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO. 26A, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER A LAPSE OF SO MANY YEARS , PARTICULARLY, BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN FORM 26A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, HENCE, ASSESSEE COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO FURNISH, AT THIS POINT OF TIME, DET AILED ACCOUNTS OF DISTRIBUTORS RETURNS AND ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTE D TO DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING CERTIFICATES AFTER A LAP SE OF SO MANY YEARS. 9. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE ANY CERTIFICA TE FROM ITS CA AT THIS STAGE BECAUSE SUCH PROCEDURE WAS PRESCRIBED ONLY RE CENTLY AND IT 7 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE EARLIER YEARS AND AFTER A LAPSE OF SO MANY YEARS, DEDUCTEES/DISTRIBUTORS WOULD NOT BE IN A POS ITION TO GIVE FURTHER DETAILS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE INSTEAD OF RESOR TING TO A PEDANTIC APPROACH, AO OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE BASIC FACT THAT THE RECIPIENTS HAVE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOM E AND, IF NECESSARY, SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED FROM THEIR RECORDS AS TO WHETH ER RECIPIENTS HAVE PAID TAXES OR NOT. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT UNDERT AKEN THIS EXERECISE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STRAIGHTAWAY AND THUS, THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE C IT(A) IS NOT WARRANTED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR, WHILE CHALLENGING TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND TAKEN IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DEC ISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ONUS IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURN ISH BASIC INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. UNDERSTANDING THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A LOGICAL MANNER INITI AL ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT DEDUCTEES HAVE FILED RETURNS AND PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS OFFERED AS DISCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE AO. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS NO T CORRECT IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WHILE GIVING A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY THE DEDUCTEES/DISTRIBUTORS OR NOT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY FURNISHED A SOFT COPY OF THE GENERAL LED GER OF THE DISTRIBUTORS FROM WHICH IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT DEDUCTEES/DISTRIBUTORS PAID THE TAXES ON THIS VERY AMOUNT. HE, THUS, STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO. 11. JOINING THE ISSUE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED LIST OF DECLARATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE ABOVE AYS ALONG WITH TURNOVER AND INCOME TA X RETURNS FILED BY 8 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. THEM ON 11/01/2011, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 80C OF THE PAPER BOOK AND, THUS, THE INITIAL ONUS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEE N DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTT A BENCH OF ITAT AND BOMBAY BENCH OF ITAT HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGING OF BASIC ONUS AND HELD THAT THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE UTILIZED ITS MACHINERY TO CROSS VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT IS INITIALLY PROVED THAT THE RECIPIENTS/DISTRIBUTORS HAVE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT, IN P RINCIPLE, CONSISTENT STAND WAS TAKEN BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES VIZ., ITAT A ND HIGH COURT THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS A DEFAULTER BY VIRTUE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF PASSING ON THE DISC OUNT TO THE DISTRIBUTORS. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IS LIMITED I.E. WHEN ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS A DEFAULTE R, AT WHAT STAGE, ASSESSEES LIABILITY WOULD END; IS IT TILL THE DATE DISTRIBUTORS FILED THEIR RETURNS. ON THIS LIMITED POINT, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BASIC DETAILS IN DIS CHARGING ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS DEFAULTER AND INTEREST CAN ONLY BE CHARGED TILL DAT E OF PAYMENT, IF ANY, BY THE DISTRIBUTORS. 12.1 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT EXPECTING ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE IN FORM 26A, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IS NOT P RACTICABLE. AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITS RETURNS, THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILIT Y OF SECTION 194H, ON PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF DI SCOUNT WAS UNDER CHALLENGE AND THERE ARE FEW DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRIBU TORS BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMMISSION, BUT, IT H AS TO BE TREATED AS DISCOUNTS SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DIS TRIBUTOR AND THE ASSESSEE IS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THU S, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED MINUTE DETAILS FROM THE 9 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. DISTRIBUTORS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A DEFAULTER U/S 201(1) OF T HE ACT. IN FACT, ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF IDEA CELLULAR LTD. [2010 ] 123 ITD 620 (DELHI) AND ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF IDE A CELLULAR LTD., 317 ITR 176 (AT), HAD TAKEN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE CON SIDERING AS TO WHETHER THE MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE AO IS SUFFICI ENT TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A DEFAULTER,U/S 201(1 A) OF THE ACT. EXPECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF CA AT THIS JUNCTURE CREATES FORCE MAJEURE SITUATION, AS HELD BY THE H ONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. HASTIMAL VS. CIT, 49 ITR 27 3; THE HONBLE COURT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUT ON THE N ECK, AFTER A LAPSE OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS, TO FURNISH DETAILS BEY OND A PARTICULAR POINT. 12.2 THE ASSESSEE, RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE I TAT, MUMBAI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS. DCIT, [2010-789-ITAT- MUM), TO CONTEND THAT WHEN SELF-DECLARATIONS WERE S UBMITTED BY THE PAYEES, IT IS FOR THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTUAL POSI TION ABOUT THE DECLARATIONS AS TO WHETHER TAXES WERE PAID BY THE P AYEES OR NOT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE AFORECITED DECISIO N IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OR IT WAS REVERSED BY ANY HIGHER FORUM . IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED THE BASIC DETA ILS I.E. LIST OF DECLARATIONS COLLECTED FROM THE CONCERNED DISTRIBUT ORS FOR THE ABOVE AYS ALONG WITH TURNOVER AND INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILE D BY THEM, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE AND INTE REST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT FROM THE D ATES WHEN THE RECIPIENTS HAVE FILED RETURNS. 12.3 ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE MODIF IED AND WE HEREBY MODIFY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DETERMINE INTEREST LIABI LITY U/S 201(1A) FROM 10 ITA NO. 1662/H/14 AND OTHERS IDEA CELLUAR LTD., HYD. THE DATE TAXES WERE PAYABLE TO THE DATE WHEN RETUR NS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY RECIPIENTS/DISTRIBUTORS. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) VICE PRESIDENT AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD., H.NO. 5-9-62, K.L.K ESTA TE, FATEH MAIDAN ROAD, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), 4 TH FLOOR, B. BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 500 004 3) CIT(A) - II, HYDERABAD 4 CIT (TDS), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE