ITO, Pune V. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Pune

ITA 2231/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 223124514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N K APADIA
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2184 & 2185/PN/2012 (A.YS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED MANIKCHAND HOUSE PLOT NO.100-101, D. KENNEDY ROAD, BEHIND HOTEL LE-MERIDIAN, PUNE 411001 PAN: AAACD5896L APPELLANT VS. ITO (TDS)-1, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NOS.2231 & 2232/PN/2012 (A.YS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) ITO (TDS)-1, PUNE APPELLANT VS. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED MANIKCHAND HOUSE PLOT NO.100-101, D. KENNEDY ROAD, BEHIND HOTEL LE-MERIDIAN, PUNE 411001 PAN: AAACD5896L RESPONDENT ITA NOS.2186 & 2187/PN/2012 (A.YS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) R.M. DHARIWAL (HUF) MANIKCHAND HOUSE PLOT NO.100-101, D. KENNEDY ROAD, BEHIND HOTEL LE-MERIDIAN, PUNE 411001 PAN: AABHD5583L APPELLANT VS. ITO (TDS)-1, PUNE RESPONDENT 2 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI S.N. K APADIA & VILESH DALYA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJE SH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING: 18.09.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 19.09.2014 ORDER PER BENCH: FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND TWO APPEALS BY TH E REVENUE PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE GROUP ON COMMO N ISSUES ARISING FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-V, PUNE. 2. IN ITA NO.2184/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN - - SUSTAINING THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON CONTRACT PAYMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTLY DEDUCTED AS FEES F OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND PARTLY DEDUCTED AS RENTAL PA YMENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS, - TREATING, THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT' FOR ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194J & 194 I OF THE ACT AND THEREBY - SUSTAINING THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE THOUGH DEMAN D FOR DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX HAS BEEN DELETED, 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARN ED ITO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS.4,44,915/- U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TAX H AS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS T O BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 3 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF GUTKA & PANMASALA APART FROM PACKA GED DRINKING WATER AS WELL AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F WIND POWER GENERATION. THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES WAS V ISITED BY TDS OFFICER AND HE ISSUED COMBINED NOTICE FOR A.Y. 2007 -08 AND 2008-09. THE ITO (TDS) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PAID M/S SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.2,08,75,232/- FOR F.Y. 2006-07 FOR MAINTENANCE O F WIND TURBINE GENERATORS WHICH INCLUDED MANAGEMENT AS WEL L AS TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ALSO CRANE HIRE CHARGES. TH E ITO (TDS) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUBMISSIONS AS TO WHY PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194J SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF MA NAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ALSO PROVISIONS U/S.194I SHO ULD NOT BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF CRANE HIRE CHARGES. THE STAN D OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT IT HAD PURCHASED TURBINE GEN ERATOR FROM SUZLON ENERGY LTD AND HAD MADE COMPOSITE CONTRACT W ITH ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD. (SISL) FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE IT WAS A COMPOSITE CONTRA CT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WIND TURBINE GENERATOR S, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE APPLICABLE AND THE BILLS WHICH SHOWED INDIVIDUAL NATURE OF PAYMENT WERE ONLY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF INTERNAL CONSUMPTION WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARIN G ON THE ISSUE THAT IT WAS A COMPOSITE CONTRACT. THE ITO (T DS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE APPLICABLE IN RESPE CT OF MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I WERE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF CRANE HIRE CHARGES. ACCORDINGLY, DEMAND U/S. 201(1) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED BY THE CON CERNED ITO AND LEVIED CONSEQUENT INTEREST U/S.201(1A) OF THE A CT. 2.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE 4 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME WITH REGARD TO MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM M/S.SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD., THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE SAID SISL FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WIND TURBINE GENERATOR . THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED FROM THE CLAUSES 3 & 4 OF THE A GREEMENT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS MANAGERIAL AND TE CHNICAL SERVICES. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THA T THE TECHNICAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE M AINTAINING WINDMILL TURBINE GENERATOR AND THEREFORE, THE ACTIO N OF ITO WAS UPHELD. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E HAS POINTED OUT THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP IN THE CAS E OF BHARAT FORGE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (2013) 36 TAXMANN.COM 574 ( PUNE-TRIB.). A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF S.194C ARE APPLICA BLE FOR PAYMENTS TOWARDS WINDMILL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE O F GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT DISTINGUISH T HE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN ABSE NCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECID ING THE ISSUE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 2.3 NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOL LOWING THE REASONING OF BHARAT FORGE LTD., (SUPRA), WE HELD TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE APPLICABLE ON PAYMEN TS TOWARDS 5 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. WINDMILL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AS DONE BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SKYCELL COMMUNICAT IONS LTD. VS. DY.CIT (2001) 251 ITR 53 (MAD) AND ITAT, AHMEDA BAD IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITO (2004) 3 SOT 468 (AHD.). IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT, BEING CONSEQUENTIAL, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 2.4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 3. IN ITA NO.2231/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194 I ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF C RANE HIRE CHARGES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I W.E.F. 13.07.20 06, THE RENT IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY, PLANT OR EQUIPMEN T ETC. WERE BROUGHT INTO THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194 I. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS BE SET ASIDE AND A.O'S ORDER RESTORED ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY O R ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE CASE THEREAFTER. 3.1 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ITO (TDS) HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT WERE APPLICA BLE IN RESPECT OF CRANE HIRE CHARGES. IN APPEAL, THE CRUCIAL FACTS T O ARRIVE AT A FINDING ASCERTAIN FROM THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO TH E CRANE HIRE WHETHER THE CONTRACT PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR RENDERING SERVICES OR RENT HAS BEEN PAID AFTER OBTAINING POSSESSION OF TH E PLANT, MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT, ETC. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT CRANE HIRE CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR SERVICES OF CRANE AND NO T FOR CRANE ITSELF. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN TAX APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2009 IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX 6 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (TDS) VS. SWAYAM SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. ON SIM ILAR ISSUE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND NOT PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I ARE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED CRANE HIRE CHARGES IN SUCH SITUATION. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HIRED THE SERVICES OF CRANES TO SHIFT THE CONTAINER S AND OTHER GOODS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER PLACE. AFTER SURVE Y ACTION U/S 133A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE DEMAND U/S 2 01(1) APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DEMAND AND MATT ER WAS CARRIED BEFORE CONCERNED TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) WAS UPHELD ON THE ISSUE. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE TH ERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN TRAILERS / CRANE ON RENT SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I OF TH E ACT. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. WINGS TRAVEL IN ITA NO.1136/PN/09 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD IN SIMILAR SET OF FACTS THAT TDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE APPLIED IN C ASE THERE IS CONTRACT FOR THE SERVICES OF VEHICLE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3.2 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 4. IN ITA NO.2185/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN - - SUSTAINING THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON CONTRACT PAYMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTLY DEDUCTED AS FEES F OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND PARTLY DEDUCTED AS RENTAL PA YMENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS, 7 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. - TREATING, THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT' FOR ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194J & 194 I OF THE ACT AND THEREBY - SUSTAINING THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE THOUGH DEMAN D FOR DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX HAS BEEN DELETED, 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARN ED ITO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS.4,39,768/- U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TAX H AS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS T O BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 4.1 A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE PARA 2. 3 OF THIS ORDER. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4.2 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 5. IN ITA NO.2232/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194 I ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF C RANE HIRE CHARGES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I W.E.F. 13.07.20 06, THE RENT IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY, PLANT OR EQUIPMEN T ETC. WERE BROUGHT INTO THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194 I. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS BE SET ASIDE AND A.O'S ORDER RESTORED ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY O R ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE CASE THEREAFTER. 8 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 5.1 A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.1 OF THIS ORDER. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONIN G, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A) BE CAUSE THE SAME IS FORTIFIED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS AS DISCUSSE D THEREIN. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5.2 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 6. IN ITA NO.2186/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN - - SUSTAINING THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON CONTRACT PAYMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTLY DEDUCTED AS FEES F OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND PARTLY DEDUCTED AS RENTAL PA YMENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS, - TREATING, THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT' FOR ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194J & 194 I OF THE ACT AND THEREBY - SUSTAINING THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE THOUGH DEMAN D FOR DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX HAS BEEN DELETED, 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARN ED ITO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS.18,936/- U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TAX HAS ALREA DY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS T O BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 6.1 A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEE GROUP CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE PARA 2.3 OF THIS 9 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ORDER. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE CONSEQU ENTIAL INTEREST OF RS.18,936/- U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT. 6.2 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 7. IN ITA NO.2187/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN - - SUSTAINING THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON CONTRACT PAYMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTLY DEDUCTED AS FEES F OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND PARTLY DEDUCTED AS RENTAL PA YMENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS, - TREATING, THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT' FOR ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194J & 194 I OF THE ACT AND THEREBY - SUSTAINING THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE THOUGH DEMAN D FOR DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX HAS BEEN DELETED, 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARN ED ITO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS.18,714/- U/S.20 1(1A) OF THE ACT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TAX HAS ALREA DY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS T O BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 7.1 A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEE GROUP CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE PARA 2.3 OF THIS ORDER. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE CONSEQU ENTIAL INTEREST OF RS.18,714/- U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT. 10 ITA NOS.2184 TO 2187 OF 12 AND 2231 AND 2232 OF 12 DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YA DAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE