The ACIT,(TDS) Circle, Ahmedabad V. Essar Projects(I) Ltd., Gandhinagar

ITA 2235/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89252 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) NOS. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2234/AHD/2011 2007-08 THE ACIT TDS-CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. PLOT NO.225, SECT.7-A, GANDHINAGAR- 382 007 PAN:AAACE 2358 J 2. 2235/AHD/2011 2008-09 REVENUE ASSESSEE 3. 2236/AHD/2011 2009-10 REVENUE ASSESSEE REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K.SINGH, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : -NONE- / DATE OF HEARING 26/03/2015 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/04/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 28/06/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. SINCE COMMON ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - ISSUES AND FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS C ONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF REVENUE, I.E. ITA NO.2234/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2007-08 AS A LEAD CASE. THE REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ORDER PASSED U/S.201(1) OF THE I.T.ACT OF AND INTEREST CHARGE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE I.T.ACT OF RS.1 ,10,47,261/-, & RS.66,28,356/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.57,20,549/- & RS.27,45,863/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND RS.1,18,81,613/ - & RS.42,77,380/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T AFTER 13.7.2006 THE PROVISION OF 1941 IS APPLICABLE ON HIRING CHARG ES OF VEHICLES FOR WHICH COVER USES OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NOT THE PROVISION OF 194C OF I.T.ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY HAD EXECUTED VARIOUS PROJECTS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ALL OVER GU JARAT. THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED DIFFERENT KINDS OF VEHICLES INCLUDING TRAI LERS /TRACTORS TANKERS / MACHINERIES/EQUIPMENTS, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE -COMPANY HIRED ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - DIFFERENT KIND OF VEHICLES/TRACTORS/TRAILER, ETC. F ROM VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS/VENDORS AND HAD MADE PAYMENT DURING FY 2006-07 OF RS.5,48,65,025/-. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT TH E COMPANY HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE @ 2.24% ON THESE PAYMENT S AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE I.T.ACT, WHEREAS THE TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT THE RATE OF 22.33% AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 1941 OF THE IT ACT, SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR HIRING C HARGES WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF RENT. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) AFTE R CONSIDERING THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE, PROCEEDED TO PASS AN ORDE R U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 MAKING DEMAND U/S.201(1 ) OF RS.1,10,47,261/- AND DEMAND U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT OF RS.66,28,356/-/ FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S AND FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT 293 ITR 226. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.1. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN REASONING FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - 13. APPELLANT ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL IT AT IN THE MATTER OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTH ERS (IT 386,387,288,406 AND 407 / RJT DATED 28-5-10 ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD T HAT SINCE THE VEHICLES ARE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTORS AND THE OPE RATING EXPENSES LIKE DIESEL, OIL, MAINTENANCE REPAIRS AND INSURANCE CHAR GES WERE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTORS, VEHICLE DEPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTORS FO R CARRYING EMPLOYEES AND GOODS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREE MENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THEM. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 19 4C HAVE UNDERGONE FREQUENT CHANGES IN ITS LANGUAGE AND SUBSTANCE. IT IS WORTHW HILE TO NOTE THAT NATION TO SECTION 194C SPECIFICALLY DEALS AND COVERS TRANSPOR T CONTRACT WITHIN ITS SCOPE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THIS VIEW WA S UPHELD BY THE HONRABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF BIRLA CEMEN T WORKS LTD V/S CBDT 248 ITR 216, COPY OF THE SAID DECISION ENCLOSED WHE REIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 14 TWO INFERENCES ARE REASONABLY POSSIBLE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR CARRYING OF GOODS WOULD COME OR NOT WITH IN THE AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION 'CARRYING OUT ANY WORK.' ONE OF THE TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TAXING STATUE WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACTED UPON AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE FOR A LONG PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED EXCEPT FOR COMPELLING REASONS. THERE CAN BE NO DOUB T THAT IF THE ONLY VIEW OF SEC 194C HAD BEEN THE ONE REFLECTED IN THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR, THEN THE ISSUE OF EARLIER CIRCULAR AND ACCEPTANCE AND ACTING HEREU PON BY THE REVENUE REFLECTING THE CONTRARY VIEW WOULD HAVE BEEN OF NO CONSEQUENCES, THAT, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE POSITION, FURTHER THERE ARE COM PELLING REASONS TO HOLD THAT EXPLANATION III INSERTED IN SEC 194C W.E.F 1-7-1995 IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE. WE HOLD THAT SECTION 194C BEFORE INS ERTION OF EXPLANATION III IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORT CONTRACT. THIS WAS HELD BY HON. SUPREME COURT. 15 APPELLANT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT B EFORE INSERTION OF 194C DEFINING 'WORK' TRANSPORT CONTRACTS WERE NOT COVERE D BY 194C AS CLARIFIED BY CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR DATED 28-5-1972 (84 ITR (ST), CIR 898 DATED 26-9-72 (86 ITR (ST) 30 AND CIR 666 DATED 8-10-1993 (214 ITR (S T) 40). APPELLANT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT AFTER THE DECISIONS OF THE HO N. APEX COURT IN THE MATTE OF ACC LTD V/S CIT 204 ITR 435) CBDT VIDE CIR NO 681 D ATED 8-3-94 HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WOULD AP PLY TO ALL TYPES OF CONTRACT OF CARRYING OUT ANY WORK INCLUDING ADVERTISEMENT, S ERVICE AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT ETC. THE SAID CIRCULAR NO. 681 WAS CHALLEN GED IN VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND WAS STRUCK DOWN BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDIN G GUJARAT, BOMBAY KARNATAKA AND MADRAS IN DIFFERENT CASES BEFORE THEM . HOWEVER RAJASTHAN, ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTS UPHELD THE SAID CIRC ULAR. SIMILARLY KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CBDT V/S COCHIN GOODS TRA NSPORT ASSOCIATION, 236 ITR 993 UPHELD THE CIRCULAR. HOWEVER THE CONTRO VERSY REACHED ULTIMATELY TO THE HON. APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF BIRLA CEMEN T WORKS V/S CBDT 248 ITR 216 WHEREIN HON. APEX COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1-7-1995 WOULD NOT BRING WITHIN ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRACT AND C IRCULAR NO. 681 WAS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN. HOWEVER, AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194C, THE TERM 'WORK' SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES 'CARRIAGE OF GOODS O R PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS' AND THUS THE T RANSPORT CONTRACT IS SPECIFICALLY COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 19 4C OF THE ACT. APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HONOURABLE FINANCE MINISTER OF INDIA I N HIS BUDGET SPEECH (212 ITR 86 (ST) 67) AND NOTES TO CLAUSE TO THE SAID FIN ANCE BILL OF 1995 HAS CLARIFIED THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO INCLUDE THE TRANSPORT CONTRACT WITHIN THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF THE SECTION 194C OF T HE ACT. 16 APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO KEEP RELIANCE ON T HE MATTER DECIDED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE MATTER OF TATA AIG GENERAL INSUR ANCE COMPANY LTD V/S ITO (2011 43 SOT 215) WHEREIN IT WAS RULED THAT THE HIRING OF CARS FOR TRANSPORTING STAFF, VISITORS, ETC, WHEN NO SPECIFIC CARS WERE ALLOTTED OR EARMARKED FOR ASSESSEE THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSID ERED AS RENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS AND THE IDS WAS TO BE MADE-U/S 194C OF T HE ACT AND NOT 1941. THE HON. AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF AHMEDA BAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S ACIT HAS HELD THAT SECTIO N 194C DEFINES THE TERM ' WORK' TO INCLUDE ' CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN RAILWAYS' WHEREAS SECTION 1941 DEFINES R ENT TO MEAN PAYMENT FOR USE OF 'PLANT' (WHICH IS DEFINED IN SECTION 43 TO I NCLUDE VEHICLES. AS THE CARS WERE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL THE EXPENDITURE WAS BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR THE CONTRACT WAS FOR' CARRI AGE OF PASSENGER' FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID A FIXED AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES FELL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194C AND WAS NOT' RENT' FOR SECTION 1941. WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT RELIANC E WAS PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF HON. ITAT AHMEDABAD 'B' BENCH IN THE MATTE R OF M/S MUKESH TRAVELS COMPANY V/S ITO IN ITA NO 2594/AHD/2010 DAT ED 25-2-2011 IN WHICH TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 1 94C OF THE ACT ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME N ATURE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE HON. ITAT ALS O OBSERVED THAT IT IMPLIES THAT PASSENGERS WERE TRANSPORTED BY THE DRIVERS AND THE VEHICLES OF THE VEHICLE OWNER / CONTRACTOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS VEH ICLE OWNERS / CONTRACTORS ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE A FIXED AMOUNT. THEREFORE , SUB CLAUSE ( C) TO EXPLANATION (III) OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY. 18. APPELLANT ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE MATTER O F ACIT (TDS) (1) (1) MUMBAI V/S ACCENTURE SERVICE PVT LTD, MUM IN IT A N O. 5920, 5921 AND 5922 / 2009 DATED 20-10-2010 WHEREIN THE HONOURAB LE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH MUMBAI HAS DEALT THE PRESENT ISSUE AT LENGTH AND CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE TRANSPORT SERVICE PROVIDER IS IN THE NATURE OF SERVICE CONTRACT ONLY. IT ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 194C SHALL APPLY TO ALL TYPES OF CONTRACT OF CARRYI NG OUT WORK INCLUDING TRANSPORT AND SERVICE CONTRACT ETC. PROVISION TO SE CTION 1941 IS CONFINED TO PAYMENT FOR RENT ON HIRING OF LAND, BUILDING, FURNI TURE ETC BUT NOT FOR THE TRANSPORT VEHICLE PARTICULARLY WHEN SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF AVAILING TRANSPORT SERVICES. THE TERM PLANT AND MACHINERY AS USED IN T HE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 1941 REFERS TO ONLY THE PLANT AND MACHINERY USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS BY HIRING THEM BUT NOT HIRING OF TRANSPORT SERVICES. THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DELIVERING THE SAID JUDGMENT VIDE OR DER DATED 28-10-2010 HAS HELD THAT TRANSPORT SERVICE PROVIDERS IS IN THE NAT URE OF SERVICE CONTRACT ONLY AND CONCLUDED THAT PAYMENTS TO THE TRANSPORT SERVIC E PROVIDER FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED U/S. 194 C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' U/S 2 01 & 201(1 A) OF THE ACT. THE HON .TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE AND PURELY AS A ALTERNATE MEASURES BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE TRANSPORT SERVIC E PROVIDER HAS PAID THE TAX BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX OR TDS IN RESPECT OF PAYM ENT, SAME BY THE APPELLANT THEN THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT AGAIN RAISE TH E DEMAND U/S 201 AND 201(1 A) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME APPELLA NT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTION HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) V/S CIT (293 ITR 2 26). 4.1. THE ONLY CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.194C OR U/S.194-I. THE AO WAS OF VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT U/S.194-I OF TH E ACT @ 22.33% INSTEAD OF @2.24%. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT AS PER EXPLANATION TO SE CTION 194-C OF THE ACT, THE TERM WORKS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE CARRIAGE O F GOODS AND PASSENGERS ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS AND THUS, THE TRANSPORT CONTRACT IS SPECIFICALLY COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT O F SECTION 194-C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AOS OBSERVATION IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY UNDERTAKES ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N (EPS) CONTRACTS FOR ITS CORPORATE CLIENTS AND GOVERNMENT ON A TURNK EY BASIS OR ON A PART CONTRACT BASIS AND IS ALSO HAVING HUGE NETWORK OF S ITES ALL OVER THE INDIA AND INCLUDING IN THE GUJARAT REGION. ASSESSEE REQ UIRES DEPLOYING ITS MANPOWER AND MACHINERIES/EQUIPMENTS TO THE PLACES W HEREVER PROJECTS ARE BEING EXECUTED. FOR THIS, IT REQUIRES DIFFE RENT KINDS OF VEHICLES INCLUDING TRAILERS/TRACTORS/TANKERS/MACHINERIES/ EQ UIPMENT, ETC. ACCORDING TO THE AO, HIRING OF VEHICLES/MACHINERIES , ETC.FROM VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS/VENDORS CAME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF RENT AS PER SECTION 194-I OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT MUMBAI) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GE NERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED AT (2011) 43 SOT 215, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE HIRING OF CARS FOR TRANSPORTING STAFF , VISITORS, ETC. WHEN NO SPECIFIC CARS WERE ALLOTTED OR EARMARKED FOR ASSESS EE, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS RENT FOR HIRING OF EQUIPMENTS AND THE TDS WAS TO BE MADE U/S.194C OF THE ACT AND NOT 1941 AND NOT U/A.1 94-I OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE COO RDINATE BENCH (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.MU KESH TRAVELS COMPANY VS. ITO PASSED IN ITA NO.2594/AHD/2010 DATE D 25/02/2011, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT CONSIDERING EXPLANATION (I II) TO SECTION 194C OF ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - THE ACT ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS HELD THAT THE PAYMEN T OF THE SAME NATURE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194C OF T HE ACT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAG E (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT 293 ITR 226(SC) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTE NTION THAT WHEN THE TRANSPORT SERVICE PROVIDER HAS PAID THE TAX BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX OR TDS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT, SAME BY THE APPELLANT THEN T HE DEPARTMENT CANNOT AGAIN RAISE THE DEMAND U/S.201 AND 201(1A) OF THE A CT. LD.SR.DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) AND COULD N OT DISTINGUISH THE CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AU THORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. 6. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE OTHER TWO APPEALS OF THE REV ENUE, I.E. ITA NOS.2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 PERTAINING TO AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 7. IN THESE REVENUES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS WERE RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2007- 08(SUPRA), WHEREIN WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. THEREFORE, ITA NOS.2234,2235 & 2236/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. ESSAR PROJECTS (I) LTD. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, BOTH THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE; I.E. FOR AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. AS A RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS FOR AYS 2008-09 & 200-109 ARE REJ ECTED. 8. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENTS YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 10 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 04 /2015 (..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#%! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. /0/12 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3 ( )* ) / THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 5. 45-12 , )* )12' , )0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 5789 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, .4*- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD