ACIT, Delhi V. M/s. Unitech Wireless Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2926/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0687 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 133A; 201(1); 201; 251; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 194J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2355/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No. 2356/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd., The Master Piece Building, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Vs ACIT, Circle-78(1), New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACU9188Q ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-78(1), New Delhi-110092 Vs Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACU9188Q Assessee by : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. & Ms. Manasvi Bajpai, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 17.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 27.02.2015. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 2 Brief facts and background of the case 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of prepaid mobile telecommunication services. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the appellant to verify the applicability of TDS provisions. Subsequently, the case was picked up for verification u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and assessment was completed on 16.03.2012 and 25.03.2013 raising a demand of Rs.3,62,76,960/- and Rs.21,45,41,917/-, respectively, on account of non deduction of taxes on margin of profit given to the prepaid distributors on sale of prepaid talk time and also non deduction of taxes on roaming charges. The demand raised also includes Rs.9,26,035/- and Rs.21,37,550/- for A.Y. 2010- 11 and 2011-12 respectively, as demand raised in the ITD software for defaults found in filing of quarterly returns. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 1) Sale of prepaid talk time: 4. The AO treated prepaid distributor as an agent of the company to whom the company sold the prepaid cards at a rate lower than the MSC (Maximum Service Charge) printed on the prepaid card as an outright sale, thus resulting in a spread between the two values. The AO has applied the provisions of Section 194H to such a spread and has consequently held this spread as a commission given to the distributors. On this commission, the AO has determined that the company should have deducted tax which was not done and therefore, he ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 3 computed the tax in default u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) to be Rs.3,49,35,242/-. 5. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd., 325 ITR 148. The appellant’s contention is that the relationship between the appellant and the prepaid distributors is not that of ‘Principal to Principal’ and hence not in the nature of commission and Section 194H is not applied. The appellant also argued that there is no payment made to the distributors and nor any amount credited into their accounts and hence Section 194H is not applicable. It was also pleaded that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. is distinguishable in-facts. It was argued that the decision of the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. are similar to the case of the assessee wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that in the case of transaction of prepaid telephony, where prepaid cards are sold at discount price there is no relationship of principle to agent which is a condition president for application of Section 194H of the Act. 6. The ld. Counsel has also tried to distinguish the distributorship agreement on account of consideration, non- compete clause and termination which is as under: ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 4 Relevant Clauses of the Contract Particulars CIT v. Idea Cellular, [2010] 325 ITR 148 (Del.) HC [Relevant Paragraphs Extracted] Distributorship Agreement with M/s. Agarwal Enterprises dated 21.10.2009 Remarks/Differenc e 1. Considera tion - Discount offered 5. Consideration a. In consideration of the Distributor fulfilling its obligations contemplated under this Agreement, UNITECH WIRELESS shall provide to the Distributor, the Service Cards at Landed Price as may be communicated to the Distributor by UNITECH WIRELESS from time to time. b. The Distributor shall be paid commission and/or incentives for Services rendered as agreed rom lime to time. The said commercial terms shall also form part of fits Agreement c. The commission and/or incentive are subject to variation during the term of this Agreement at the sole discretion of UNITECH WIRELESS and the same shall be communicated in writing to the Distributor. d. Where applicable, any sums or commissions due to the Distributor by UNITECH WIRELESS may be offset by UNITECH WIRELESS against any payments due to UNITECH WIRELESS by the Distributor. - The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Idea Cellular concluded that the relationship between telecom service provider and the PMA was of principal-to- agent thus the discount offered was treated as commission. - In the facts of the present case, telecom service provider has paid commission for the services provided under the agreement and also withheld tax on the same. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 5 2. Non- compete Clause “2.............. The terms of agreement further provided that without written consent of ICL the distributors (PMAs) shall not directly or indirectly: (i) Market, solicit, sell, offer and accept offers for telephony services that compete with ICL's telephony services. (ii) Induce or refer any actual or prospective subscriber of ICL's telephony seivices to subscribe to any Competitive Telephony Services. (iii) Provide any Company or Customer information/data to any competitive entity” - There is no non-compete clause in the agreement entered between the assessee and the distributor. - In the case of CIT v. Idea Cellular, it is evident from the non-compete clause that the distributors were in complete control of the telecom service provider, establishing principal- agent relationship. - However, in the assessee’s contract, there is no non-compete clause implying that the intent of the assessee was never to hire an agent, rather the distribution channel was based on principal- to- principal basis. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 6 3. Terminati on Clause “25. No doubt, as per Clause 6(a) of the Agreement, PMA is supposed to make the payment in advance. That would not make any difference to the nature of transaction in view of Clause 25(d) of the Agreement, which stipulates as under: "25(d) Upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement for any reason, PMA shall discontinue the marketing/distributin g/offering for sale, Idea Chitchat Pre- paid Services, and shall forthwith return to ICL the entire stock of Pre-paid SIM Cards/Recharge Coupons remaining with him and/or his Authorized Retailer. ICL shall pay to PMA for such Pre-paid SIM Cards / Recharge Coupons received by it from the distributor." 12. Effect of Termination a. The parties agree that upon termination of this Agreement for any reason the Distributor, shall immediately return all equipment and furniture supplied by UNITECH WIRELESS forthwith upon request and remove all UNITECH WIRELESS signage and all other items indicating that the Distributor's Office was operated as UNITECH WIRELESS distributorship. d. The Distributor and its personnel shall cease to promote, market, or advertise for the Services for Unitech Wireless with immediate effect and shall not be released from any obligation arising out or any transaction entered into or completed prior to the date of such termination or expiry. e. The Distributor shall at its own expense return to UNITECH WIRELESS promptly all information, documentation, samples, advertising, promotional or sales materials relating to the Services in possession of the Distributor and materials confidential to UNITECH WIRELESS and / or software and future marketing plans or future models of the UNITECH WIRELESS together with any copies thereof or any other documents entrusted to the Distributor by UNITECH WIRELESS, f. The Distributor shall within 7 days of termination, settle all the outstanding dues of Unitech Wireless & retailers, arrange to return all the documents and properties of Unitech Wireless or cost thereof. 13. Termination Assistance Distributor shall, at Unitech Wireless's request, provide assistance in transferring Services back to Unitech Wireless, or a Third Party nominated by Unitech Wireless upon termination or expiration of this Agreement ("Termination Assistance"). The Termination - This is based on standard market practice wherein all unused stock is returned to the telecom service provider because he is no more the distributor however no refund is paid on the unused talk-time. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 7 7. In this background, we have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the following facts emerge: • The reason given by AO, the submission of the appellant and the judicial pronouncements discussed by AO as well as by the appellant are considered. The appellant submitted that from January, 2007 it appoints distributors for sale of prepaid connection that includes recharge vouchers, electronic top-up, internet and other modes of electronic services. For this purpose, the appellant enters into arrangements in the form of agreement with the distributors on a principal-to-principal basis. Under this arrangement, the appellant transfers its pre-paid products to its distributors at a discount and the distributors in turn distribute the same to the retailers. The retailers, thereafter, transfer the same to the ultimate subscribers. At each level of the distribution, the party distributing the pre-paid products retains a margin for its efforts and risks assumed, while the appellant, being the service provider assumes the responsibility for provision of service to the subscriber, similar to what a manufacturer owes by assuming the product liability towards the consumer. Accordingly, the appellant provides discount on the MRP of the cards and only the net income is recorded in the books of accounts. • The appellant also distinguished the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. 325 ITR 148 relied on by the AO on the ground that there is no provision of post delivery loss, pilferage or damage of pre-paid SIM card/recharge coupons in the ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 8 agreement between the appellant and the distributor as it was a factor in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Further, the appellant submitted that in its case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and the pre-paid distributors does not provide that the appellant would be responsible to take back the unsold stock upon termination of the agreement. On the contrary, the agreement entered into by the appellant and its pre-paid distributors specifically provides that upon termination of the agreement, the Appellant shall not be liable to pay any kind of compensation to the said distributors and hence, shall not liable to compensate the distributors for any unsold stock as in the case of Idea. The aforesaid fact further proves that the relationship between the Appellant and its pre-paid distributors is that of a ‘principal to principal’ and the pre-paid distributors do not act as an agent of the Appellant. Hence, the appellant concluded that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. is clearly distinguishable on facts and hence cannot be applied to the appellant’s case. • The applicability of Section 494H in the case of amount received by the appellant from the distributors of prepaid SIM cards depends on two issues, whether there is any principal to principal relationship or principal to agent relationship. In the case of principal to principal relationship there is no applicability of 194H and in the case of principal to agent relationship the TDS provision will apply. This issue depends on whether sale of SIM card ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 9 to the distributor is a service or commodity. In the cases of M/s Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd. and M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. it has been held that the sale of prepaid SIM Cards is done through agreement entered into between the assessee and his dealers and hence the agreement establishes principal and agent relationship between the two parties and therefore, any discount, commission made to such parties are liable for deduction to tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. In the case of BSNL Vs. UOI 282 ITR 273 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that telephone service is nothing but a service. There is no sales element apart from the obvious one related to the hand set. It is also held that the SIM Card sold to the customer is not goods sold but supplied as a part of service. Against this principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 31(Kar), wherein it is held that “Sale of SIM cards involves sale of right to services. Therefore, the relationship between the assessee and the distributor would be that of principal and principal and not principal and agent. Moreover, where SIM card is sold at discounted price, there is no payment of commission or brokerage to the distributor. Hence, TDS u/s 194H is not applicable on sale of SIM card and prepaid discharge coupons by telecom companies to distributors at discounted MRP.” • However, the Hon’ble High Court also observe that in the case of prepaid SIM card subscriber pays for the talk time in advance and its balance depletes as and when he uses it. For continuation of using the card the user buy a ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 10 recharge voucher. Thus, at least in the case of prepaid SIM card, the concept of goods sold is not applicable. Moreover, the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in. the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. is challenged by the assessee in the Apex Court. The decision in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. given by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (Supra) emphases on ‘right to service’ which is transferable. The concept of ‘right to service’ and ‘service’ has not reached the finality in this case. • Second issue is regarding the accounting principle applied in the recording of the discount amount. If on delivery of the card, the assessee raise bill for Rs.100 and records Rs. 100 as sale and debits Rs. 20 in the P& L account, then certainly the discount given on Rs.20 is liable for TDS. But if the assessee raises the bill for Rs. 80 and records only Rs. 80 in the credit side of the P &L account, then the TDS provision will not be applicable. As submitted by the appellant, the appellant is crediting Rs. 80 in the P & L account and thus, no TDS will be applicable on this amount as the MRP is not recorded in the account at all. In view of this, the AO is directed to verify the accounting principle applied by the appellant in this case. However, respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble high court in the case of idea cellular limited 325 ITR 148 on this issue, it can be held that the distributors appointed by the appellant are rendering service to the principal company thereby there is a principal agent relationship and hence discount offered to the distributors is in the nature of commission liable to TDS u/s 194H of the Act. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 11 Therefore, the addition raised is confirmed and the ground of appeals dismissed. 8. Having gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) and after hearing the arguments of the assessee and also after going through the different clauses of the agreement which do not tangibly differentiate from the facts examined by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd., we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2) Non-deduction of Tax u/s 194J on the Roaming Charges: 9. The other ground raised by the assessee pertains to non deduction of tax u/s 194J on the roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom operators. 10. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in appellant’s own case in respect of 'inter connection charges’. The contention of the appellant is that treatment of roaming charges as ‘fees for technical services’ on the basis of human intervention is not correct as manual interference exists only at the time of set up and fault repair. 11. For A.Y. (2010-11), the AO raised a demand u/s 201(1) & section 201 (1A) of Rs. 4,15,684/- on an amount of Rs.26,46,126/- being the amount of roaming charges paid to Idea Cellular Limited. Similarly, for A.Y. 2011-12, on an amount paid on account of roaming charges Rs. 12,73,37,034/-, the AO raised demand of Rs.204,72,785/-. As per the Ld.CIT(A), ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 12 12. The AO also provided a copy of the expert’s opinion to the appellant for cross examination. The contention of the appellant was that roaming charges are not in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ has not been considered by the AO on the basis of the order of the AO in the case of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. (VEMSL) for F.Y. 2002-03, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6692 dated 12.08.2010. 13. The AO reproduced the entire statement recorded on this issue from C-DOT Considering the facts and circumstances of appellant’s case similar to VEMSL, the AO considered the roaming charges paid to the distributors as ‘fee for technical services’. Since, the appellant failed to make TDS on these fee for technical services, the AO raised the demand u/s 201 of the Act. 14. The AO relied on the order in the case of VEMSL where based on the expert opinion, it was held that there is human intervention involved in the process of transfer of calls from the appellant to other service providers and hence the payment made by the appellant to other service providers is in the nature of ‘fees for technical service’ involving TDS under the provision of Section 194J. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant is that roaming charges is in fact a payment on behalf of the subscriber of the appellant who has temporarily become a subscriber of another service provider. Even if this is considered as payment by the company on its own right, the judgment in the case of Skycell will still apply and additionally ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 13 the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel. 15. The AO’s decision is based on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharti Cellular & other in 193 Taxman 97 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated August 12, 2010 observed that human intervention is essential for any fee/charges to get covered under the definition of ‘fees for technical services’ as defined in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. However, since the expert opinion was not available on record on whether any ‘human intervention’ is involved in the provision of interconnect services, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the office of the learned TDS officer for seeking expert opinion on this aspect and thereafter for fresh adjudication on this matter basis such facts. In accordance with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, examination of the technical experts - Mr. Tanay Krishna, Group Leader (Project Planning) at C-DOT, Delhi and Mr. Ashok Mittal Group Leader (CLH) at C-DOT, Delhi was conducted in the office of the CIT- TDS, New Delhi (CIT-TDS) on September 29, 2010, wherein, their statements were recorded and thereafter, the appellant was also given an opportunity to cross examine the technical experts. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 31.12.2010 concluding that human intervention is required in the process of interconnection. 16. The AO held that although the exercise of obtaining expert’s opinion during the proceedings u/s 201 of the Act was not carried out in appellant’s case, considering similar facts of ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 14 the case, prominence can very well be drawn. The appellant argues to distinguish the findings of the expert opinion in the case of VEMSL on the ground that in the roaming transaction process, there is no delivery of service by any human. The appellant admits that human intervention is required to maintain robust network to ensure break down free service to the subscriber. It is mentioned that technical support staff is used for correcting the system to keep the network in robust condition. The appellant contended that the maintenance of network has no relation to the roaming calls. 17. The revenue relied on opinion by the experts that “no human intervention is required in the process of carriage of calls, which is fully automatic and is a standard facility available to all. Human intervention is required at the interconnect set up stage including configuration, installation, testing etc. and capacity enhancement, monitoring including network monitoring, maintenance, fault identification and repair of telecom network by the roaming operators’’ and came to a conclusion that it cannot be said that roaming service is not a technical service. The revenue held that there is a technical arrangement between two telecom companies for providing roaming services to their customers which is possible only with use of sophisticated equipment. Roaming service is a technical service provided by one operator to another operator and not directly to the subscriber. It is a service liable for service tax. Hence, the revenue held that provisions of Section 194J of the Act are applicable on the roaming charges paid by the appellant to the telecom companies. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 15 18. We have gone through the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer, the relevant portions are as under: Q.3. What is the process of carriage of cells originating on network of one operator and terminating on the network of the other operator? The call from one network to the other network flows automatically, i.e. without any human intervention. Once a call originates, the call travels automatically. In establishment of a call, there is no human intervention i.e. once a subscriber dials and the call gets connected without any fault, then there is no human intervention. Intervention is required only when the call is not successful, i.e. the call fails due to any reason. Q.4. Is any human intervention involved in the entire process of carriage of call from one operator to another? No, as stated above, no human intervention is required in the process of carriage of calls. However, human intervention is required at the inter-connect set-up stage (including configuration, installation, testing etc.) and capacity enhancement, monitoring (including network monitoring), maintenance, fault identification, repair and ensuring quality of service as per interconnect. Q.5. From the perusal of your answer to Question 4 of your statement, it appears that the phases described thereon are restricted to merely setting up of the inter-connect ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 16 between the networks of the two operators and not during actual carriage of the cal by one operator for the other. Please confirm. Yes. Q.6. With reference to your comments under clause (d) in answer to Question 6 of your statement is the network monitoring undertaken specifically for the point of interconnect or such monitoring is required for the telecom network as a whole? Monitoring is undertaken by the operators for their own network upto the point of interconnect. Failures in the network are thrown up automatically by the system but human intervention is required or attending to them, i.e. for reading the message and taking corrective action. Q.7. From 0perusal of your answers to various questions posed to you by the Tax Department, you have mentioned that services of a technical expert are required for inter- connect arrangement. Please confirm whether such services are required for provision of inter-connect services, i.e. carriage of calls from one network to another, or are primarily for fault detection and removal. Please refer to answer to Question 4 of this cross examination. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 17 Q.8. Regarding your answer to Question 12 of your statement, please re-confirm that monitoring/supervision referred to their relates to monitoring/supervision of their own network by the respective telecom operators. Yes. It is in the interest of every operator to undertake monitoring of its network to identify faults/defects in the system on a real time basis and take remedial action. The network maintenance is not required at the behest of the other party. Each party maintains its network for itself.” 19. The contentions of the revenue in the case of CIT vs. Vodafone South Ltd. which are similar in the instant case are as under: 1) Roaming is not possible unless an agreement is entered into between the two service providers. 2) Entire Roaming facility is based on IMSI which consists of MNC (Mobile Network Code a unique code allotted to assessee) and SIM which is also issued by the assessee. 3) Roaming services is a highly technical service which is possible with the use of equipment such as MSC, VLR, Radio Network, Tower, BTS, BSS and highly advanced technology. 4) It is a technical arrangement between the two telecom service providers to connect their equipments, network and services to enable their customers to have access of telecom network wherever they move. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 18 5) All the necessary arrangements are being made by the Home service provider to enable its subscriber to get connected in all other circles. The subscriber need not interact act for any roaming services with other service provider. It is the technology established between two service providers which executes roaming system. 6) The subscriber has to get roaming activated through Home Service Provider. Only then he can access the services of service provider of another circle. 7) Whenever the subscriber tries to access the network of service provider of other circle, service provider of other circle shall be authorized by the Home Service provider as per the agreement entered into between the two service provides. If there is no roaming agreement between two operators or if the home telecom operator does not authenticate, subscriber cannot enjoy roaming facility. 8) The subscriber does not require to change the SIM card but by using the SIM card of Home Service provider he can access other network. 9) As per the agreement the other, service provider raises bill on the Home Service provider and only the Home Service Provider is liable to pay the amount irrespective of payment made by subscriber. The subscriber and service provider of other circle are no way liable for any thing with each other. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 19 10) If the subscriber does use SIM of Home Service provider he cannot access telecom operator of other circle unless he purchases new SIM card. 11) It is clear from the bills raised by telecom operator of other circles that they have changed service tax to assessee and the assessee has paid the same. This simply means that services were provided by one operator to other and not to customers directly. The Service Tax Act has also recognized roaming services as taxable services the Finance Bill, 2007. 12) The entire system is to be monitored/managed by the highly stalled technical. A small technical problem can disturb the connectivity of entire region. To avoid such eventuality the entire process is being monitored by skilled persons. 13) This clearly shows that the service provider of another region to whom roaming charges are paid is not providing services directly to ultimate customer but it is providing services to another telecom operator to facilitate its customers. 14) The provision of section 194J refers to "any sum" paid by the payer and does not distinguish between the payment made by someone on its behalf or its customer's behalf. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the payment received by the assessee from the customers of the assessee and paid to other mobile ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 20 company does not fall under TDS provision, is not tenable. From the above, it is clear that Home Service Provider takes technical services of other telecom service provider to facilitate the subscriber to access telephone wherever he visits and therefore it is required to deduct TDS from the payments made to obtain these services. 20. The analysis of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Vodafone South Ltd. is reproduced for clarity: “9. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenues proposition is that though the roaming happens automatically but because equipment is used to render the roaming service, because technical manpower is needed to operate and maintain the technical equipment therefore, roaming per se is rendering of technical services and therefore, the amount paid for roaming is technical fee in terms of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. The ld. AR explained the roaming service and submitted that Hexacom subscriber in Jaipur travels of Mumbai switches on his mobile device after reaching Mumbai. Where the subscriber travels by land he automatically receives a message transferring to the roaming network on visiting another telecom, circle. • Visiting network (e.g. Airtel in Mumbai) locates mobile device and identifies that it is not registered with its systems, i.e. VLR. • Visiting Network automatically contacts home network of Hexacom subscriber, i.e. HLR and gets service information about roaming device using IMSI number -IMSI number is a ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 21 unique subscriber identity number granted to the customer at the time of subscription. • Visiting network maintains temporary subscriber record for the said mobile device and provides an internal temporary phone number from backend system to the mobile device which is not visible to human. • Home network also updates its register to indicate that the mobile is on visitor network so that information sent to that device is correctly routed. • The Hexacom's subscriber in Mumbai, who is temporarily registered as Airtel's subscriber makes calls in Mumbai and the minutes are registered in his identity for which he has to pay through Hexacorn Jaipur. • Alternatively, a called from Jaipur makes a call to Hexacom's subscriber which is routed to the home network of Hexacom subscriber in Jaipur. • Home network then forwards all incoming calls to the temporary phone number which terminates at the device of roaming, subscriber (in Mumbai) who is now using the services of the visiting network (i.e., Airtel): * The entire process above is automatic and does not involve any human intervention at any stage. Billing process • Usage of roaming subscriber in visited network is captured in a file called TP, i.e. transferred account procedure for GSM/CIBER, i.e., cellular inter-carrier billing exchange record for. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 22 • Tap file contains details of calls made by subscriber, viz., location, calling party, time of call and duration, etc, TAP/CIBER files are rated as per tariffs charged by visiting network operator. • such TAP/CIBER file is transferred to home network of subscriber i.e. to Hexacom). • Home network (i.e. Hexacom) then bills these calls to the Hexacom's subscriber and pays roaming charges based on the TAP to the visited network operator (i.e. Airtel) The roaming operator charges as per the roaming agreement with Hexacom, whereas the subscriber is billed as per the tariff-subscribed. • The entire process is automatic. It is concluded that the above transaction flow that the service of providing airtime by visiting telecom circle is directly to the subscriber and not to Hexacom. The subscriber of Hexacom uses the network set up by the visiting circle and instead of amount being recovered from the roaming subscriber, the visiting circle sends the air minutes to be recovered from the roaming subscriber to the Home circle for recovery from the subscriber who had visited the visiting circle. Technical fees • It is an accepted fact that technical service can be said to have been rendered if there is an involvement of human element if there have been use of cerebral faculties in the provision of technical services by the recipient of fee. • This is so because the word "technical" comes in between the words "managerial and consultancy services". Based upon the principles of "nositur a sociis" there has to be an element of manual intervention at the time when the service is being rendered. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 23 • Technical services should have a fact situation of imparting technical knowledge involving or concerning applied and industrial science. The ld AR further argued that finding of the ld. CIT(A) are based on contract between two operators but contract has no relevancy on the nature of the service whether technical or otherwise. The ld. CIT(A) partly accepted that roaming process is technical because it uses various instruments such as MSC (Mobile Switching Centre), VLR (Visitor Location Register), Radio network, towers, BTC etc, but the system is operated/managed by the Highly skilled professionals. The assessee's argument was that the roaming service is managed automatically by machines and payment for roaming charges are not fees for technical services. In case of fault in a breakdown of a system, the professional people are required to monitor the telecom network to be in a robust condition in order to do business for self. This monitoring does not have any connection with roaming charges paid by the subscriber. If a telecom network breaks down there is no business and thus no payment. Existence of IMSI is only a facility to communicate and does not result the roaming services provided on a standard facilities to be a technical service. The whole roaming process is automatically and there is no human interference in it. The human interference is required to maintain the robust network only to ensure break down free service to the subscriber. The network owner has to maintain for itself, its network in robust condition. The technical support of the staff is required to maintain the equipment and gazettes but it is not a service for roaming facility provided to the subscriber. There is commercial arrangement to connect the technical networks basically to be able to do business. In fact DOT mandates that it should be so connected. There is no payment made for connecting the networks. Payments are made for calls which the roaming subscriber makes. If no calls are made no ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 24 payment is made in spite of the fact that the networks are inter connected. He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. 319 ITR 139 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that roaming services not involving human interference and is not technical services as contemplated under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and not liable for tax deduction at source U/s 194J of the Act. This view has been earlier held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT(2001) 251 ITR 53 (Mad) order dated 23.02.2001 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that provisions of Cellular mobile telephone facility to subscribe is not a technical service. Deduction of tax at source need not to be made from subscriptions U/s 194J of the Act. He further relied on the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 123 TTJ 888 (JP Trib) wherein it has been held that Section 194J would have application only when the technology or technical knowledge of person is made available to other and not where by using technical systems, services are rendered to others. Rendering of services by allowing use of technical system is different from charging fees for tendering technical services. The applicability of Section 194J would come into effect only when by making payment of fee for technical services, assessee acquires certain skill/knowledge/intellect which can be further used by him for its own purpose/research. Where facility is provided by use of machine/robot or where sophisticated equipments are installed and operated with a view to earn income by allowing the customers to avail of the benefit by user of such equipment, the same does not result in the provision of technical service to the customer for a fee. Therefore, he argued that in roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other operators are not fees for technical services. The ld AR further relied on the decision in the case ofiGATE Computer Systems Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No. 1301 to 1303 & 1616/PN/2013 for A..Y 2007-08 to 2010-11 wherein the ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 25 Hon'ble Pune Bench of ITAT had considered whether any human intervention is required for providing the data link services and are liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act and held that payments made for utilizing such services was not in the nature of technical services governed by Section 194J of the Act. He further relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Canara Bank v. ITO 305 ITR (AT) 189 wherein MICR charges paid to SBI held not to be covered U/s 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation-2. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) [2012] 20 ITR (Trib) 265 wherein payment made by State Load Dispatch Center (SLDC) is held not liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act. The ld AR further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT[2012] 25 taxmann.com 164, Siemens limited 30 taxmann.com 200, ITAT Kalkata Bench Decision in the case of Right Florists Pvt. Limited ITA No.1336/Kol/2011 and ITA Delhi bench decision in the case of Delhi Transco Ltd. (ITA No. 755(Del)/2011 A.Y. 2005-06. He also relied on the decision in the case of DCIT v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 20 SOT 248 (Delhi). The revenue filed appeal against the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "In cases requiring examination by technical experts, the Department ought not to proceed only by the contracts placed before the officers. With the emergence of our country as one of the BRIC countries and with, technological advancement, the Department ought to examine technical experts so that the matters could be disposed of expeditiously. Further, this would enable the appellate forum, including the Supreme Court, to decide the legal issues based on the factual foundation. Held accordingly, ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 26 remanding the matters for determination with technical assistance, that in these cases, in which a cellular provider under an agreement pays interconnect/access/port charges to BSNL/MTNL, the question whether the cellular provider has rendered technical services and has to deduct tax at source, depended on whether the charges were for technical services, and this involved determination of whether any human intervention was involved, which could not be determined without technical assistance. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.319 ITR 139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts reexamined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that roaming services does not require any human intervention, it operates automatically. The ld AR also drawn our attention on independent opinion taken from Director CMAI, Ex- Director (C&M), BSNL, Ex-Member Telecom Commission on 24.12.2010 and admitted that whole interconnected uses process, no manual intervention is required. He further drawn our attention on page No.651 to 652 for postpaid as well as prepaid roaming charges charged between the operators from Mr. Kapoor Singh Guliani. The appellant also taken opinion from Former Chief Justice of India Mr. Kapadia on IUC post technical examination, cross examined and reexamination. Who also opined that Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 12.08.2010 is an order not judgment as the principle of law was not res-integra. The word technical services have got to be read in narrow since as held by the various Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal by applying principles of "Nositur a sociis'" particular because the word technical service in Section 9(1)(vii) read with ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 27 Explanation-2 in between word managerial consultancy services. Finally he opined that such setting up/installation, repairing, servicing, maintenance are separate activities, they are back office functions and are require human intervention. But the roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Accordingly, the interconnected uses charge will not attract the provisions of Section 194J read with Section 9(1) (vii) read with Explanation-2 thereto. Therefore, he prayed to delete the addition. 10. At the outset, the ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). ............ 14. Reading of the above order clearly show that fact - situation was essentially similar to the one here in the case of the assessee. Assessee was also treated as one in default for failure to deduct tax at source on roaming charges paid to other distributors. Therefore the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. We also find that the said decision has been followed by Ahmedabad bench in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS) (ITA NO.386/Add/2011, dt.07.07.2015). Following these, we are of the opinion that assessee could not have been deemed as one in default for non-deduction of tax at source on roaming charges paid by it to other service providers. Ground 3 is allowed. 15. In its ground no.4, assessee is aggrieved on the levy of interest u/s.201 (1A) of the Act. This is a consequential ground. We have already held that assessee is not at default for deduction of tax on roaming charges and interest levied on the assessee on such amount u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, stands deleted. However, in so far as interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act in relation to discounts/commission ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 28 on prepaid SIM cards and talk time is concerned, we have remitted the issue back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra). AO is directed to revise the levy of interest accordingly. Ground 4 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 7. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court found that the fact situation are also the same and the payment made for roaming connectivity cannot be termed as "technical services" and, ultimately, it was found that the assessee could not be said as in default for non deduction of TDS at source on the roaming charges paid by it to the other service provider and the appeals are allowed to that extent. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 8. We have heard Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - Revenue in all the appeals. The learned Counsel relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court for canvassing the contention that the roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other service provider can be said as 'technical services'; one was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] 193 Taxman 97/[2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC); and the another was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC) and it was submitted that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions are considered, the decision of the Tribunal would be unsustainable and consequently, the questions may arise for consideration before this Court in the present appeals. 9. We may record that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd.(supra) the Apex Court after having found that ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 29 whether human intervention is required in utilizing roaming services by one telecom mobile service provider Company from another mobile service provider Company, is an aspect which may require further examination of the evidence and therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Further, in the impugned order of the Tribunal, after considering the above referred decision of Bharti Cellular. Limited, the Tribunal has further not only considered the opinion, but found that as per the said opinion the roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Therefore, we do not find that the aforesaid decision in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. would be of any help to the appellants - Revenue. 10. In the another decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. the matter was pertaining to the charges of the Stock Exchange and the Apex Court, ultimately, found that no TDS on such payment was deductible under Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants - Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is provided, then it can be said as a "technical services". Therefore, he submitted that in the present case, roaming services to be provided to a particular mobile subscriber by a mobile Company is a customize based service and therefore, distinguishable and separately identifiable and hence, it can be termed as "technical services". 11. In our view, the contention is not only misconceived, but is on non-existent premise., because the subject matter of the present appeals is not roaming services provided by mobile service provider to its subscriber or customer, but the subject matter is utilization of the roaming facility by payment of roaming charges by one mobile service provider Company to another mobile service provider ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 30 Company. Hence, we do not find that the observations made are of any help to the Revenue. 12. As such, even if we consider the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd.supra, whether use of roaming service by one mobile service provider Company from another mobile service provider Company, can be termed as "technical services" or not, is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal, after considering all the material produced before it, has found that roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Coupled with the aspect that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court for taking support of its view. 13. In our view, the Tribunal is ultimately fact finding authority and has held that the roaming process between participating company cannot be termed as technical services and, therefore, no TDS was deductible. We do not find that any error has been committed by the Tribunal in reaching to the aforesaid conclusion. Apart from the above, the questions are already-covered by the above referred decision of the Delhi High Court, which has been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned decision. 14. In view of the above, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. [2016] 241 TAXMAN 497 (KARN),[2016] 290 CTR 436 (KARN)” 21. After considering the entire issue, the Hon’ble High Court held that “after going through the order of the Assessing Officer, ld. CIT(A) submissions of the assessee as well as going ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 31 through the process of providing roaming services, examination of technical experts by the ACIT TDS, New Delhi in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd., thereafter cross examination made by M/s. Bharti Cellular Ltd., also opinion of Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of India Mr. S.H. Kapadia dated 03.09.2013 and also various judgments given by the ITAT Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Canara Bank on MICR and Pune Bench decision on Data Link Services, it was found that for installation/setting up/repairing/servicing/maintenance capacity augmentation are required human intervention but after completing this process mere interconnection between the operators is automatic and does not require any human intervention. It was held that the term Inter Connecting User Charges (IUC) also signifies charges for connecting two entities. The Coordinate Bench also considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. in the case of in iGATE Computer System Ltd. and held that Data Link transfer does not require any human intervention and charges received or paid on account of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act.” 22. To conclude, • The primary issue in the appeal was whether the roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other telecom service providers were in the nature of ‘Fee for technical Services’ and hence, liable for TDS under section 194J. ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 32 • The issue was considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. • The Apex Court restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration after seeking the support of technical expert to ascertain if any human intervention is required in providing interconnect/roaming services. • Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vodafone South Ltd held that payment made by a mobile service provider to another mobile service provider for utilization of roaming mobile date and connectivity cannot be termed as technical service and therefore, no TDS was deductible u/s194J of the Act. • The High Court upholding the order of ITAT observed that the ITAT had examined the facts and came to the conclusion that payment made for roaming connectivity cannot be termed as “technical services”. 23. Hence, we hereby hold that no TDS u/s 194J is deductible in case of roaming charges paid. ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 24. The solitary grounds taken up by the revenue is as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1A) on the basis of the decision in the case of M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 355 (SC) whereas the assessee was liable ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 33 to pay the interest u/s 201(1A) even though the relevant amount might have been included by the respective deductee in their respective income tax returns.” 25. The issue pertains to non-applicability of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the tax due has already been paid by the payee, no demand can be levied due to mismatch in TDS details in ITD software. 26. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the order in the case of M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 355 (SC) and held that once the deductee has paid the taxes, there is no liability on the deductee with regard to the tax payment. The issue raised by the revenue before us is pertains to Section 201(1A). We need to differentate between the provisions to Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) which has been inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. 27. The said provisions of Section 201(1A) reads as under: “(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest,— (i) at one per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is deducted; and ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 34 (ii) at one and one-half per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deducted to the date on which such tax is actually paid, and such interest shall be paid before furnishing the statement in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200: Provided that in case any person, including the principal officer of a company fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1), the interest under clause (i) shall be payable from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such resident.” 28. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) noted the contents of the Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 issued by the CBDT, which declares as under: "10. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act." ITA Nos. 2355, 2356, 2925 & 2926/Del/2015 Unitech Wireles Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. 35 29. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and Instruction of CBDT as per its Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is chargeable up to the date of payment of taxes by the deductee/payee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in line with the instructions of CBDT till the date of payment of taxes by the respective deductee/payee in the respective Assessment Years. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard and re-compute the interest chargeable under section 201(1A) of the Act. In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 30. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/05/2022 S d /- S d /- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31/05/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR