DCIT (TDS) 2(1), MUMBAI V. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 3947/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5335 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHTAR HANSARI
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 201(1); 194J; 72

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI , ,$% BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 3947 / /201 7 (,. . 2012-13 ) ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2(1), ROOM NO.615, 6 TH FLOOR, SMT. K.G.MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG., CHARNI ROAD (W), MUMBAI 400 002. ...... . / APPELLANT , VS. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. HBLOCK, 1 ST FLOOR, 1 ST WING, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY, THANE BELAPUR ROAD, NAVI MUMBAI 400 710 PAN: AAACR 2658E ..... /0/ RESPONDENT .1/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHTAR H. ANSARI /01/ RESPONDENT BY : NONE. ,20 / DATE OF HEARING : 30/09/2020 345 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/10/2020 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) -16, MUMBAI (IN SHORT THE CIT(A)) 2 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) DATED 31/03/2017 IN PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER SECTI ONS 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING TELECOM MUNICATION SERVICES TO ITS SUBSCRIBERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. FOR PROVIDING UNINT ERRUPTED SERVICES TO ITS SUBSCRIBERS, THE ASSESSEE PAYS ROAMING CHARGES/INTE RCONNECT USAGE CHARGES TO OTHER TELECOM OPERATORS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AS SISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) (IN SHORT ACIT-TDS) HELD THAT RO AMING/INTERCONNECT USAGE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO RELIANCE TELECOM LT D. ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT, ON SUCH PAYME NTS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAID PAYMENTS T HE ASSESSEE WAS HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACIT-TDS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) R.W.S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ACIT -TDS VIDE ORDER DATED 12/03/2014 FASTEN TAX LIABILITY OF RS.4,24,07,479/- ON ACCOUNT OF WITHHOLDING TAX UNDER SECTION 194J AND INTEREST OF RS.57,05,216 /- UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) . 3. THE CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOLLOWING TH E DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD., 330 ITR 239 (SC) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS VIZ.: (I) CIT VS. VODAFORE SOUTH LTD. [2016] 72 TAXMANN.C OM 347 (KARNATAKA HC); (II) BHARATI AIRTEL VS. ITO (TDS)[2016] 67 TAXMANN. COM 223 (DEL-TRIB); (III) SEIMENS LIMITED, 30 TAXMANN.COM 200 (MUM TRIB ); 3 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) (IV) VODAFONE EAST LTD VS. ADDL. CIT [2015] 61 TAXM ANN.COM 263 (KOL TRIB); (V) IDEA-CELLULAR LTD VS. CIT [2016] 65 TAXMANN.COM 116 PUNE; (VI) DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. [2015] 60 TAXMANN.COM 32 9 (CHENNAI-TRIB); AND (VII) BHARTI HEXACOM LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA 656/JP/201 0 DECIDED ON 12.06.2015. CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE/RES PONDENT TO OTHER TELECOM COMPANY FOR UTILIZATION OF NETWORK CANNOT B E TERMED AS TECHNICAL SERVICES AS ACCESS TO THE NETWORK DURING THE CALLS IS FULLY AUTOMATIC AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION. HENCE, SUCH PA YMENTS CANNOT BE TERMED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. SINCE, NO TECHNIC AL SERVICES ARE INVOLVED THE PAYMENTS FOR SUCH SERVICES CANNOT BE TERMED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. CONSEQUENTLY, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON SUCH PAYMENT S. 4. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (1) GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT{A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 'ROAMING CHARGES' PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. (RTL) ARE NOT IN THE NATUR E OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AND HENCE NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. (B) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING THE 201(1) ORDER REGARDING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194J OF THE I.T. ACT ON PAYMENT OF ROAMING CHARGES AND CONSEQUENTLY DELETING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201( 1A) OF I. T. ACT, 1961. IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THA T PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) IS MANDATORY IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF TDS AMOUNT. (2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALT ER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE LIME OF THE HE ARING OF THE CASE OR THEREAFTER. (3) THE ORDER OF THE C1T(A) BEING ERRONEOUS BE SET ASIDE AND A.O.'S ORDER BE RESTORED. 4 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) 5. SHRI AKHTAR H. ANSARI, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF ACIT-TDS DATED 12/03/14 PASSE D UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT AND PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE FINDING OF CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH TDS PROVISIONS U/S 194J OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO OTHE R TELECOM OPERATOR I.E RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. FOR SHARING ITS NETWORK. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND HAVE EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS ON R ECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS PL ACED RELIANCE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS: WHETHER THE ROA MING CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDER (RELIANCE TELECOM LTD.) ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND H ENCE, LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 7. THE ISSUE WAS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE APEX COURT RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECO NSIDERATION AFTER SEEKING THE SUPPORT OF TECHNICAL EXPERT TO ASCERTAIN IF ANY HUM AN INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED IN PROVIDING INTERCONNECT/ROAMING SERVICES. 8. THEREAFTER, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.(SUPRA) DECIDED IN 2016, AFTER C ONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT (RENDERED IN AUGUST 2010) HELD T HAT PAYMENT MADE BY A MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER TO ANOTHER MOBILE SERVICE P ROVIDER FOR UTILIZATION OF ROAMING MOBILE DATE AND CONNECTIVITY CANNOT BE TERM ED AS TECHNICAL SERVICE AND THEREFORE, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S194J OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH 5 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) COURT UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PAYMENT M ADE FOR ROAMING CONNECTIVITY CANNOT BE TERMED AS TECHNICAL SERVICE S. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGEMENT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS UN DER:- 7. THE AFORESAID SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL BY RELYING U PON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE FACT SITUATION ARE ALSO T HE 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 DEF AULT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AT SOURCE ON THE ROAMING CHARGES PAID BY IT TO THE OTH ER SERVICE PROVIDER AND THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THIS COURT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD MR. K.V. ARAVIND, LEARNED COUNSEL AP PEARING FOR THE APPELLANTS - REVENUE IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REL IED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT FOR CANVASSING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ROAMIN G CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER SERVICE PROVIDER CAN BE SAID AS 'TECHNICA L SERVICES'; ONE WAS THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHARTI CELLULA R 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.C OM 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 DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTIONS MAY A RISE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 9. WE MAY RECORD THAT IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI CELLULAR LTD. (SUPRA) THE APEX COURT AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT WHETHER HUMAN INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED IN UTILIZING ROAMING SERVICES BY ONE TELEC OM MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER COMPANY FROM ANOTHER MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER COMPAN Y, IS AN ASPECT WHICH MAY REQUIRE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE REFORE, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF BHARTI C ELLULAR. 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 F ULLY AUTOMATIC AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION. THEREFORE, WE DO NO T 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 C ASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. THE MATTER WAS PERTAINING TO THE CHARGES OF THE STOCK E XCHANGE AND THE APEX COURT, ULTIMATELY, FOUND THAT NO TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT WAS D EDUCTIBLE 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 DE CISION OF THE APEX COURT, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IF A DISTINGUISHABLE AND IDENTIF IABLE SERVICE IS PROVIDED, THEN IT CAN BE SAID AS A 'TECHNICAL SERVICES'. THEREFORE, H E SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT 6 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) CASE, ROAMING SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED TO A PARTICUL AR MOBILE SUBSCRIBER BY A MOBILE COMPANY IS A CUSTOMIZE BASED SERVICE AND THEREFORE, DISTINGUISHABLE AND SEPARATELY IDENTIFIABLE AND HENCE, IT CAN BE TERMED AS 'TECHNI CAL SERVICES'. 11. IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTION IS NOT ONLY MISCONCEIV ED, 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 SUBSCRIB ER OR CUSTOMER, BUT THE SUBJECT MATTER IS UTILIZATION OF THE ROAMING FACILITY BY PA YMENT OF ROAMING CHARGES BY ONE MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER COMPANY TO ANOTHER MOBILE S ERVICE PROVIDER COMPANY. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AR E 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 ROAMIN G SERVICE BY ONE MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER COMPANY FROM ANOTHER MOBILE SERVICE PROVID ER COMPANY, CAN BE TERMED AS 'TECHNICAL SERVICES' OR NOT, IS ESSENTIALLY A QUEST ION OF FACT. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE IT, HA S FOUND THAT ROAMING PROCESS BETWEEN PARTICIPATING ENTITIES IS FULLY AUTOMATIC A ND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION. COUPLED WITH THE ASPECT THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT FOR TAKING SUPPORT OF ITS V IEW. 13. IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL IS ULTIMATELY FACT FINDING AUTHORITY A ND HAS HELD THAT THE ROAMING PROCESS BETWEEN PARTICIPATING COMPANY C ANNOT 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 A FORESAID 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. [EMPHASIZED BY US] 9. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN A RECENT DECISION IN ITA NO.3964/MUM/2017 FOR A.Y 2008-09 AND 3965/MU M/2017 FOR A.Y 2009- 10 TITLED DCIT VS. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. DECIDED ON 03/01/2019 IN AN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) FOR NON-DEDUCT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF ROAMING CHARGES TERMING IT AS FEE FOR T ECHNICAL SERVICES. THE CIT(A) REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND HELD THAT THE PAYMENT FOR ROAMING CHARGES ARE NOT AKIN TO FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE D EPARTMENT ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN AFOREMENT IONED APPEALS AND THE SAME 7 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) WERE DISMISSED. WE OBSERVE THAT IN ABOVE SAID APPEA LS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ASSAILING THE FINDING OF CIT(A) ARE IDEN TICAL TO GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 10. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PLACE ON RECORD HERE THAT FOR IDENTICAL REASONS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT WER E INVOKED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ISSUE TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2953/MUM/2014 AND 2958/MUM/2014. THE TRIBUNAL DE CIDED THE AFORESAID APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 11/4/2016. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AFTER RECORDING OF EXTENSIVE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES LEFT THE ISSUE OPEN BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 13. ......... HERE IN THIS CASE, POST BHARATI CELLULAR LTD., DEC ISION BY THE SUPREME COURT, WHEREBY, AO WAS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE TECH NICAL EXPERTS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CONCLUSIVE AT THIS STAGE QUA THE CONCEPT OF HUMA N INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF ROAMING, BECAUSE IN SUCH CROSS EXAMINATIONS, AS INC ORPORATED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THERE IS INHERENT CONTRADICTION AND IF WE GO BY THE LATEST PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA), THEN THE WHOLE TEST OF CONSTANT HUMAN INTERVENTION AND HUMAN INTERFACE FAILS IN THE CASE OF ROAMING CHARGES. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT ENTERI NG INTO THE SEMANTICS OF THE CONTROVERSY WHETHER HUMAN INVOLVEMENT/INTERVENTION IS THERE QUA THE PAYMENT OF ROAMING CHARGES. WE ARE KEEPING THIS ISSUE OPEN AND OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE ARE NOT FINAL CONCLUSION ON THIS MATTER, BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD., WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE A O EXTENSIVELY HAS NOT STOOD SCRUTINY OR CONCLUDED BY ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITIES OR ANY COURT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF ANY REBUTTAL WHICH MAY COME FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESS EE. THUS, WE ARE REFRAINING FROM DECIDING THE FIRST ISSUE BEFORE US. WHEN THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL, THE TR IBUNAL DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD. (SUPRA) AS THE SAID JUDGEME NT IS LATER IN TIME. POST VODAFONE SOUTH LTD. (SUPRA) VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. 8 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) 11. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS DISCUSSED A BOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ROAMING CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BROUGHT BEFORE US ANY CONTRARY DECISION. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.1 (A) OF THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED SANS-MERIT. 12. IN GROUND NO.1(B) OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HA S ASSAILED DELETING OF INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ROAMING CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER T ELECOM SERVICE PROVIDER ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE S NO TDS UNDER SECTION 194J IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. ONCE THERE IS NO LIABILITY F OR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE, QUESTION OF CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. AS A COROLLARY OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE ADDRESSING GRO UND NO.1(A), THE GROUND NO.1(B) IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. WE HOLD, ACCORD INGLY. 13. THE GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERA L IN NATURE AND, HENCE, REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY THE 08 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (VIKAS AW ASTHY) '$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 6,/ DATED: 08/10/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) 9 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. . / THE APPELLANT , 2. /0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 70 ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 70 CIT 5. 89/0, , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9:;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 10 ITA NO. 3947/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 21/09/2020 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21/09/2020 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PR OPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER