ITO, Meerut V. C.C.S. University, Meerut

ITA 3656/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53502 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT GARGDR
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 10(14); 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI B BENC H BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.3656 & 3657/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 & 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT V/S C.C.S. UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY ROAD, MEERUT [TAN:MRTCO 0033 F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI V.K. GOEL, AR REVENUE BY SHRI ROHIT GARG,DR DATE OF HEARING 13-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-12-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE APPEALS FILED ON 30.07.2010 BY THE REVENUE AG AINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 03.05.2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-MEERUT, RAISE THE FOLLOWING SIMILAR GROUNDS:- 1.1 THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HO LDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), MEERUT U/S 201(1) READ WITH SECTION 194J OF THE INC OME- TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.09.2009 RAISING DEMAND OF ` `31,21,520/- FOR THE AY 2007-08 & ` `41,87,921/- FOR THE AY 2008-09 ERRONEOUS. 1.2 WHILE HOLDING THE AFORESAID ORDER U/S 201(1) RE AD WITH 194J ERRONEOUS, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE I NTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS UNDER: I) THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE THI RD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEREFORE, CBDT CIRCULAR N O.8 DATED 24.11.2009 AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MEDI ASSTT. TPA VS. DCIT (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) CANNOT BE APPLIED, WHILE DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 2 II) THE WORK OF CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION OF COPY B OOKS OF THE EXAMINEES WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 19 4J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ENTIRE PAYMENT MADE BY THE UNIVERSITY. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF AFORESAID UNIVERSITY O N 10 TH JULY, 2009,WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT S OURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS OF ` 1,95,39,827/- IN THE FY 2006-07 & ` 2,91,05,000/- IN THE FY 2007-08 MADE TO THE PRINCIPALS OF THE VARIOUS COLLEGES UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION AS DETAILED IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS DATED 18.9.2009.IN RESPONSE TO A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26 TH JULY, 2009, THE AFORESAID UNIVERSITY DID NOT FILE A NY REPLY EVEN AFTER TAKING A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS UNTIL 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009, A LETTER WAS RECEIVED THROUGH DAK WHEREIN DETAIL OF P AYMENTS TO DIFFERENT COLLEGES AS ADVANCE TO COORDINATORS WAS FILED FOR THE AFORES AID TWO YEARS. ON EXAMINATION OF THESE DETAILS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT APART FROM P AYMENTS MADE TO 26 COLLEGES MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2009, PAYMENT OF ` 10 LACS WAS MADE TO VV COLLEGE, SHAMLI WHILE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF MS COLLEGE, SAHARANPUR AND BALANCE PAYABLE WAS ` 83,553.10 AND JV JAIN COLLEGE, SAHARANPUR ADJUSTED AN AMOUNT ` 97,332.97 IN THE FY 2006-07. SIMILAR PAYMENTS OF 2,91,05,000/- WERE MADE IN THE FY 2007-08 TO PRI NCIPALS OF 15 COLLEGES. DURING THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION, THE COLLEGES PRO DUCED A LETTER DATED 25.6.2007 ISSUED BY CCS UNIVERSITY, MEERUT WHEREIN GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF COPY OF BOOKS OF THE EXAMINEES, AMOUNT PAYABLE AS REMUNERAT ION, EXPENDITURE FOR TA, DA ETC. WERE MENTIONED. THE AFORESAID UNIVERSITY DI D NOT FILE ANY REPLY BEFORE THE AO NOR ASCRIBED ANY REASONS AS TO WHY TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS TO THE PRINCIPALS OF VARIOUS C OLLEGES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER [ITO TDS, MEER UT] CONCLUDED THAT THE EVALUATION WORK WAS TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THE UNI VERSITY WAS REQUIRED TO I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 3 DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FRO M THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE/LUMP SUM PAID TO THE PRINCIPAL OF VARIOUS COLLEGES IN T ERMS OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 194J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ACCORDINGLY, THE AO RAISED DEMAND FOR TDS OF ` `22,13,520 BESIDES INTEREST U/S 201(1A) TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9,97,658/-,TOTALLING TO ` ` 31,21,520 FOR THE FY 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2007-08 AND ` ` 32,97,596/- ON ACCOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND ` 89,325/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ,TOTALLING TO ` `41,87,921/-FOR THE FY 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2008-09. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED IN THE AY 2007-08 AS UNDER:- 6.3.3 ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR, R ELEVANT POINTS EMERGE AS UNDER:- I) TO CONDUCT EXAMS, THE UNIVERSITY HAS DEFINITE PR OCEDURE AND FORMS A COMMITTEE OF ALL THE PRINCIPALS OF VARIOUS CENTERS AND FIXES THE DUTY TO CONDUCT EXAMS AND PREPARE RES ULTS. II) ALL THE PRINCIPALS OF THE COLLEGES ARE DUTY BOU ND TO CONDUCT EXAMS AND PREPARE RESULTS AS PER DIRECTIONS AND NOR MS FIXED BY THE UNIVERSITY. FOR THIS PURPOSE PRINCIPAL IS T ERMED AS COORDINATOR. THE COORDINATORS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE HELP OF PROFESSORS, CLERICAL STAFF AND CLASS IV STAFF FOR W HICH REMUNERATION IS FIXED AS PER NORMS FROM TIME TO TIM E. III) THE UNIVERSITY HAS ADVANCED THE AMOUNT OF ` `1,95,39,827/- FOR THE FY 2006-07 & FOR THE FY 2007-08 TO THE COOR DINATORS TO CONDUCT THE EXAMS. IV) THEREFORE, THE COORDINATORS ARE NOT A CONTRACTO R BUT ARE BOUND TO FULFILL THEIR DUTY BEING PRINCIPALS OF COL LEGES. EACH COORDINATOR IS IN-CHARGE TO CONDUCT THE EXAM AT HIS CENTRE WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSORS, CLERICAL STAFF AND CL ASS IV EMPLOYEES. V) ALL THE TEAM STAFF GET REMUNERATION AS PER /THE DUTY WHICH IS PAID BY THE COORDINATOR TOWARDS TRAVELING EXPENSES, FOOD AND BEVERAGES ETC. WHICH IS EXEMPTED U/S 10(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, PRINCIPAL OF CENTER IS UN DERSTOOD AS DDO TO DEDUCT TAX IF REMUNERATION PAID BY THE CO ORDINATOR EXCEEDS THE LIMITS AS PROVIDED IN INCOME-TAX ACT AF TER MAKING ALL THE DEDUCTIONS AS PER LAW. 6.3.4. CONCLUSION: I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS OBSERVATION AND CONTENTIONS ARE BASED ON PRESUMPTIO NS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LEGAL POSI TION OF THE CASE. IT IS CLEAR FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, WHICH HAVE N OT BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I) THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY VIS A VI S THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES AS TO WHETHER THERE EXISTED A NY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES OR IT WAS MERELY AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE EVALUATION STAFF. II) IF THERE EXISTS ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNIVER SITY AND COORDINATOR COLLEGES THEN WHAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION/REMUNERATION/INCOME OF THE COORDINATO R COLLEGES. III) WHETHER GUIDELINES/INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE U NIVERSITY STIPULATES ANY CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES. IV) THE REMUNERATION FIXED AS PER THE LETTER DATED 25.06.2007 ISSUED BY CCS UNIVERSITY, MEERUT WAS TO BE PAID TO THE EVALUATION STAFF BY THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES FROM T HE ADVANCE/REPLENISHMENT RECEIVED BY THE COORDINATOR C OLLEGES FROM THE MEERUT UNIVERSITY. V) THUS, THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES (TPAS) WERE RESPO NSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENTS AND THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE AND OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS M ADE BY THEM TO EXAMINATION/EVALUATION STAFF. VI) THUS THE AMOUNT OF ` `1,95,39,827/- PAID AS ADVANCE/REPLENISHMENT TO THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT ALL AS REMUNERATION TO THE COORDIN ATOR COLLEGES. VII) GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOR APPOIN TING COORDINATOR COLLEGES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONT RACT BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES . THE ARS SUBMISSIONS CLARIFY THE LEGAL AS WELL AS F ACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) THERE WAS IN FACT NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNIVER SITY AND THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES. II) THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES WERE UNDER AN OBLIGATI ON UNDER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOR CONDUCTING THE EXAMS. THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE REFERRED TO AS TPA (THIRD PA RTY ADMINISTRATOR) IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.8 DATED 24 NOVEMBER, 2009 AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF MEDI ASSIST TPA VS. DCIT (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 5 III) THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS/REPLENISHMENTS TO THE COO RDINATOR COLLEGES (TPAS) BY THE MEERUT UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN ANY CASE AS REMUNERATION/CONSIDERATIO N FOR THE OBLIGATION TAKEN BY THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES (T PAS) FOR CONDUCTING THE EXAMS. IV) THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS/REPLENISHMENT OF ` `1,95,39,827/- MADE TO THE COORDINATORS (TPAS) WAS ONLY IN FACT A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES FOR MAKING PAY MENTS OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES OF THE EVALUATION STAF F OF THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES FOR CONDUCTING OF EXAMS. V) QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TDS ON THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS/REPLENISHMENT BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE COO RDINATOR COLLEGES (TPAS) DOES NOT ARISE IN THE LIGHT OF RECE NT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.8 DATED 24 NOVEMBER 2009 AND THE JUDGME NT CITED IN THE CASE OF MEDI ASSIST TPA VS. DCIT (KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT). IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND THE POSITION OF LAW AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE, THE ORDER PASSED BFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 201(1) READ WITH SECTION 194J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.9.2009 RAISING A DEMAND OF ` `31,21,520/-, IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS. THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. APPELLAN TS GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 3.1 SIMILAR FINDINGS WERE RECORDED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN THE AY 2008-09 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. D R WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT THE EVALUATION WORK A SSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DIFFERENT COORDINATORS, BEING TECHNICAL IN NATURE , THE UNIVERSITY WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ADDED THAT THERE BEING NO EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIO NSHIP BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COORDINATORS, TAX COULD NOT BE D EDUCTED AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS SALARY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONTENDING THAT THEY OBTAINED DETAILS FROM ONE COLLEGE (PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK ) WHEREIN TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE EVALUATORS, TREATING THE AMOUNT AS SALARY. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR STATED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE DETAILS OF SUCH REMUNERATION PAID TO VARIOUS EXAMINERS, NOR WERE THEY IN A POSITION TO I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 6 RECONCILE THE AMOUNT. EVEN A COPY OF THE LETTER D ATED 25 TH JUNE, 2007, REFERRED TO BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER, TREATING THE AFORESAID A MOUNT FOR EVALUATION WORK DONE ON CONTRACTUAL BASIS, HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS REVEAL ED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 10.7.2009 IN THE PREMISES OF THE AFORE SAID UNIVERSITY, THE AO SHOWCAUSED THE UNIVERSITY ON 26.7.2009. HOWEVER, TH E UNIVERSITY DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS EVEN AFTER REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS SOUGHT ON 30.7.2009 &10.8.2009.SINCE NONE APPEARED ON THE ADJOURNED DAT E OF HEARING ON 18.8.2009, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ON 20.8.2009.NO REPLY WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 3.9.2009, THE UNIVERSITY SENT THE RELEVANT DETAILS THROUGH DAK..SINCE THE UNIVERSITY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY REPLY NOR THE REASONS AS TO WHY TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS, THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE AFORESAID UNIVERSITY TO THE COORDINATORS I.E . PRINCIPAL OF THE AFORESAID COLLEGES, AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ACCORD INGLY, CONCLUDED THAT TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.8 DATED 24.11.2009 AND DECISION OF HONBLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MEDI ASSIST TPA VS. DCIT IN WRIT PETITION NO.11376 OF 2009 DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 2009 RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF TPA RESPONSIBLE FO R MAKING PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS IN TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT ENTERED INT O BY TPA WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE REFERRING TO SUBMIS SIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER U/S 201 READ SECTION 194J OF THE ACT ERRONEOUS. INTER ALIA, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT REMUNERATION FIXED AS PER LETTER DATED 25 TH JUNE, 2009 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY WAS PAID TO THE EVALUATION STAFF BY THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES OUT OF ADVANCE/REPLENISHMENT RECEIVED BY THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES FROM THE MEERUT UNIVERSITY. HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT BEFORE US IS CC S UNIVERSITY AND NOT MEERUT UNIVERSITY. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE AMOUNT PAID AS ADVANCE I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 7 /REPLENISHMENT TO THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES CANNOT B E CONSIDERED AT ALL AS REMUNERATION TO THE COORDINATOR COLLEGES AND THE GU IDELINES ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTRACT BE TWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND COORDINATOR COLLEGES. AS IS APPARENT FROM A MERE G LANCE AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT RECORD ANY FINDINGS ON THE APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194 J OF THE ACT , WHICH THE AO SPECIFICALLY INVOKED IN THE INSTANT CASE NOR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE NATURE O F AFORESAID PAYMENTS FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES A ND NOR EVEN ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ,KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY REPLY BEFORE THE AO AS TO WHY TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS E VEN COPY OF ANY REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. INDISP UTABLY, THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO, CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2009 OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BE FORE HIM, EVEN WHEN HE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT S UBMIT ANY REPLY BEFORE THE AO, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY ALLO WED. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO INDICATE AS TO WHETHER OR NO T THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A),WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AO. IN NUTSHELL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMIT TED BEFORE HIM, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE . MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN MEDI ASSIST TPA(SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY TPA, AN AGENT OF THE HOSPITAL, UNDER AN AGR EEMENT WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, ARE PARALLEL TO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN NO SUCH AGREEM ENT BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND CO-ORDINATOR COLLEGES HAS BEEN PLACE D BEFORE US NOR THE CONCERNED AO WAS ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY BEFOR E FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ORDINAR ILY, THE APPEAL WOULD I.T.A. NOS.3656&3657/DEL ./2011 8 BE DECIDED ON THE EVIDENCE RECORDED IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS ON THE APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT NOR THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ,EXPLAINING THE EXACT NATURE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY TH E UNIVERSITY TO THE PRINCIPALS OF AFORESAID COLLEGES ARE BEFORE US, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS.1.1 & 1.2 IN THE A PPEAL TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER O R NOT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND OF COURSE, AFTER AL LOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NOS . 1.1 & 1.2 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF. 6. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENTS WAS MADE BEFORE US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THESE TWO APPEALS ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (U.B.S.BEDI) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. C.C.S. UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY ROAD, MEERUT 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSA LI RD. MEERUT. 3. CIT (APPEALS), MEERUT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,B BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI