Dy.CIT, Cir-14(1), Hyderabad V. Central Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1798/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69976 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Advance ruling
• Section: 194C; 201(1); 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1796 TO 1798/HYD/2012 ASST. 2007-08 TO 2009-10. DCIT, CIR-14(1), -V- CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTI ON COMPANY HYDERABAD. OF A.P. LTD., HYDERABA D. PAN:AACCC0125D (APPELLANT) (RES PONDENT) C.O.NOS.11 TO 13/HYD/2013 (IN ITA NOS.1796 TO 1798/HYD/2012 ASST. YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2009-10). CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION -V- DCIT , CIR-14(1), COMPANY OF A.P LIMITED HY DERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SRI P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY CROSS OBJECTOR BY SRI M. CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO DATE OF HEARING 27 - 11 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 - 12 - 2013 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIF FERENT ORDERS OF CIT (A). SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVE D, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE APPEALS AND C ROSS 2 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. OBJECTIONS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND WIT H REGARD TO TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY AND THAT IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROYALTY AS DEFINED UNDER S UB- SECTION OF CLAUSE (IVA) TO EXPLANATION (2) OF SECTI ON 9 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTION 194J(1)(C ). SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE WILL DEAL WI TH THE FACTS NARRATED FROM APPEAL NO.1796/HYD/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 3. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR HAS PAID RS.1,74,00,22,136/- TO M/S. APTRANSCO LTD., THE OWNER OF TRANSMISSION LINES NETWORK AS TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES. BEING THE USER OF TRANSMISSION LINES NETWORK FOR DISTRIBUTION POWER, THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR IS PAYING THIS AMOUNT WHICH ATTRACTS TDS U/S 194J OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR HAS HOWEVER DEDUCTED TAX U/S.194C. SECTION 194C DEALS WITH TDS ON WORKS CONTRACTS WHEREAS THE TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES ARE PAID FOR USE OF TRANSMISSION LINES NETWORK. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(C) OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, M/S. APTRANSCO IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NON- DISCRIMINATORY OPEN ACCESS TO ITS TRANSMISSION SYST EM FOR USE BY THE LICENSED CUSTOMERS. THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF SECTION 40 OF ELECTRICITY ACT ARE REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER: '40. IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF A TRANSMISSION LICENS EE (A) TO BUILD, MAINTAIN AN-I OPERATE AN EFFICIENT, 3 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. CO-ORDINATED AND ECONOMICAL INTER-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OR INTRA-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AS THE CASE MAY BE ; (B) TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE REGIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE AND THE STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE AS THE CASE MAY BE ; (C) TO PROVIDE NON-DISCRIMINATORY OPEN ACCESS TO ITS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FOR USE BY (I) ANY LICENSEE OR GENERATING COMPANY ON PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES; OR (II) ANY CONSUMER AS AND WHEN SUCH OPEN ACCESS IS PROVIDED 4. THE ELECTRICITY ACT AUTHORIZES THE PERSON HOLDI NG THE LINCENSEE, APTRANSCO FOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO IT S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, IN OTHER WORDS TRANSMISSION NETWORK OR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT, 'FOR USE AGAINST PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES.' HERE THE OWNER OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE NET WORK IS APTRANSCO AND THE USER IS CPDCL I.E. THE ASSESSEEE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HELD THAT FOR USING THE TRANSMISSION LINES NETWORK THE AMOUNTS PAID IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY. 5. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J,W.E.F.13- 07- 06, ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM BY WA Y OF 'ROYALTY' SHALL BE AT THE TIME OF CREDIT / PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM SHALL DEDUCT TAX @ 10% OF SUCH SUM. AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (BA) TO EXPLANATION OF SECTION 194J, 'ROYALTY' WAS DEFINED TO HAVE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI). HERE IN THE INST ANT 4 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. CASE, THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES BY CPDCL TO APTRANSCO IS AGAINST THE USE OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF THE LICENSE HOLDER. IT IS A CASE OF MERE USE OF TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT AND NOT POSSESSION OF IT. THUS, ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES SQUARELY FALL WIT HIN THE DEFINITION OF 'ROYALTY' AND THE ASSESSEE DEDUCT OR IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 194J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON SUCH PAYMENTS. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 07.03.2011 VIDE LETTER NO. CGM(FIN)/GM(ACCT & IPC)/AO(A&B)/D.NO.266/2010, DTD. 04.03.2011 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT TDS IS BEING MADE AT 2% U/S 194C TREATING TRANSMISSION CHARGES AS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND THAT DEPARTMENT HAS TAKE N SIMILAR STAND IN THE YEAR 1999 FOR A.YS.1998-99 AND 1999-2000. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF LT.A.T, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAI PUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (2009) 123 ITJ (JP) 888, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS OF WHEELING/ SLDC CHARGES DO NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS U/S 194J OF LT. ACT, 1961. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINC E AP TRANSCO HAS FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS UP TO A .Y. 2010-11 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECEIPTS OF TRANSMISS ION & SLDC CHARGES, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DEMAND U/S 201 (1) OF LT. ACT. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TREATING THE TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES AS PAYMENTS TOWARDS 'WORKS CONTRACT'. IN THE INSTANT CASE, 'TRANSMISSION & SLDC CHARGES ARE PAID FOR USE OF 5 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT AND NOT FOR ANY EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT. MOREOVER THE PROVISIONS OF 'ROYALTY ' WAS INCLUDED IN SECTION 194J OF LT. ACT, 1961 W.E.F, 13.07.2006. THE NATURE OF 'TRANSMISSION & SLDC CHARGES' APTLY/EXACTLY FITS INTO THE 'ROYALTY PAYME NTS' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9(1)(VI) EXPLANATION 2, SUB C LAUSE (IVA) AND (VI) AND AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 194J. HENCE IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE DEVELOPED SCENARIO THAT TH E TRANSMISSION & SLDC CHARGES BE TREATED AS ROYALTY' AND THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT THE RATES AS APPLICABLE U/S194J OF I.T. ACT, 1961 TREATING THE TRANSMISSION AND SLOC CHARGES PAID TO APTRANSCO LTD. AS ROYALTY'. FURTHER THE DECISION OF IT.A.T. JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED (2009) 123 TTJ (JP) 888, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS OF WHEELING/SLDC CHARGES DO NOT ATTRACT. PROVISIONS U/S 194J OF I T ACT, 1961 D OES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE FOR THE REASON THAT THERE, T HE SAID PAYMENTS WERE TREATED AS 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES U/S 194J (1)(B)' WHEREAS HERE IN THIS ORDE R THE TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES ARE ESTABLISHED AS 'ROYALTY U/S 194J(1)(C)'. FURTHER, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT 'SINCE PTRANSCO HAS FIL ED ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS UP TO A.Y. 2010-11 CONSIDERI NG THE RECEIPTS OF TRANSMISSION & SLDC CHARGES, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN M/S. RATHI GUM INDUSTRIE S THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DEMAND U/S 201(1) OF LT. ACT ', THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANT IATE THIS CLAIM AND HENCE UNABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AT THI S JUNCTURE. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND TREATED THE PAYMENT S 6 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. MADE TOWARDS TRANSMISSION AND SLDC CHARGES AS ROYALTY U/S.194J(1)(C) AND LEVIED TAX AND INTEREST OF RS.9,76,15,240/- & R S.5,12,48,003/-U/S 201(1) AND 201(LA) RESPECTIVELY. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY VARIOUS TDS OFFICERS HAVE TREATED THE TRANSMISSION CHARGES DIFFERENTLY UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF CHAPTER XVIIB VIZ. 194C, 1941 AND 194J AND U/S 194J AS ROYALTY OR AS TECHNICAL FEE. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT HERE IS NO UNIFORMITY OR CONSISTENCY IN THE TREATMENT OF THE TRANSMISSION CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS PROVISIONS AND SO FAR THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION BY ANY HIGH COURTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RELYING ON VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS WHILE THE ADDL. CIT HAS RELIED ON THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING DECISION. THE AR OBJECTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) TO THE APPLICATION OF AARS DECISION BECAUSE IT IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSES OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AAR. THE CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION OF AAR IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE APPLICANT S WHO HAVE APPLIED UNDER CHAPTER-XIXB ALONE AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OTHER CASES BUT STILL IT HAS PERSUASIVE EFFECT AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY VS. DIT (251 ITR 657 (SC), THE AAR IS A BODY EXERCISING JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED BY THE INCOME-TAX LAW AND THEREFORE, IT SHALL HAVE THE STATUS OF A TRIBUNAL 7 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, TH E OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE AAR HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. THE CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND I.E., WHETHER THE TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO APTRANSCO WOULD AMOUNT TO ROYALTY U/S 194J(1)(B) AS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE TECHNICAL SERVICES U/S 194J(1)(B) AS ARGUED BY THE ADDL. CIT OR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES U/S 194C OF IT ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH IN CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED VS. DCIT (2009) (123 TTJ (JP) 888) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J DO NOT APPLY. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 12. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE JAIPUR BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS RENDERING OF ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE 8 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED IN THAT ORDER THAT TRANSMISSION CHARGES IS NOTHING BUT PAYMENT AS DEFINED IN SEC. 9(C) EXPLN-2, SUB-SECTION (IVA) AN D (VII) AS REFERRED IN SECTION 194J AND NOT AS FEE FO R TECHNICAL SERVICES. 13. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S AJMER VIDYUT VIKRAM NIGAM LIMITED (24 TAXMAN COM 300 (AAR) WHEREIN THE HONBLE AUTHORITY HAS HELD THAT ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CHARGES ARE IN T HE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE RULING OF THE SAID AUTHORITY IS REFERRED TO A PARTICULAR CASE IN WHICH CASE IT WAS DELIVERED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE GENERALLY APPLIED TO OTHER CASES. FURTHER THERE ARE PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT THE FEES PAID FOR TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID TO THE TRANSMISSION COMPANY WERE NEITHER IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES NOR RENT AND THEREFORE THE SAME DO NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTIONS 194J AND 194I OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NOS. 546 TO 548/BAN/2010 AND 530 TO 535/BAN/2011 FOR ASST. YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 DATED 16-3-2012 REPORTED IN (2012) 149 TTJ BANGALORE 102). BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES 9 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THE CIT (A) HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW THAT THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM THE TRANSMISSION CHARGES U/S 194J/ 194I OF THE ACT. 14. FURTHER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED. I N OUR OPINION, THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR APPLYING DECISION IN ONE CASE TO ANOTHER IS TO FIRST FIND OU T WHETHER THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION IN BOTH TH E CASES IS SIMILAR. IF THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, THEN TH ERE DOES NOT ARISE ANY PROBLEM IN ADOPTING THE EARLIER VIEW. IF HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE, THEN THE EARLIER VIEW CANNOT BE APPLIED AS SUCH. IN THIS DIRECTION THE FACTS OF BO TH THE CASES ARE TO BE EXAMINED. THE NATURE OF WORK DONE FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., WAS FOR PURCHASING POWER FROM THE GENERATION COMPANY AND TRANSMITTING IT TO CONSUMERS. IT WAS THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR WHICH JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., MADE PAYMENT TO TRANSMISSION COMPANY. THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE THEN EXAMINED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF WORK FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF WHEELING AND TRANSMISSION CHARGES. IT IS BORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE 10 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH APTRANSCO. 15. FROM THE ASSESSEES AGREEMENT WITH APTRANSCO, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PAYEES NOT ONLY INCLUDED THE SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSMISSION OF THE POWER BUT ALSO SEVERAL OTHER DISTINCT SERVICES SUCH AS MAINTENANCE OF METERING SYSTEM, NOTING DOWN METER READING, SEALING AND RESEALING OF METERS ETC. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUCH AGREEMENT WERE MUCH MORE THAN THOSE RECEIVED IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., (SUPRA) WHICH WERE CONFINED ONLY TO PURCHASING POWER FROM THE GENERATION COMPANY AND SELLING IT TO CONSUMERS THROUGH TRANSMISSION NETWORK. THIS FACTUAL POSITION COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO STUCK TO ITS STAND THAT THE SERVICES WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE I N THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., (SUPRA ) WITHOUT POINTING OUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES AS NOTED ABOVE WERE PRESENT IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AFTER READING MAJOR PART O F THE ORDER OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., HE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL SERVICES WERE ALSO THERE IN THAT CASE. SINCE HOST OF OTHER SERVI CES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM THOSE RECEIVED BY JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THAT CASE CANNOT BE STRAIGHT 11 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. AWAY APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE INASMUCH AS IT IS A QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF NATURE OF SERVICES WHICH DECIDES ABOUT THE SECTION UNDER WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE, IF REQUIRED. AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE HEL D THAT PRIME FACIE THE FACTS OF THESE TWO CASES ARE MATCHING. BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUC T TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. IF IT IS DEDUCTED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONSIDERED AS DEFAULTOR U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. 16. AS WE HAVE DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BEING ITA NOS. 1796 TO 1798/HYD/2012, CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13/12/2013. SD/- ( SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 13 TH DECEMBER, 2013 COPY TO:- 1) DCIT, CIR-14(1), HYDERABAD. 2) M/S. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A)-II, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT TDS), HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. JMR* 12 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD.. 13 ITA NOS.1796-1798 AND COS 11-13/12 CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, HYD..