ACIT, Gurgaon V. M/s Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 5003/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65943 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANONEET DALAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM & SHRI C.M.GARG, JM ITA NO.5003/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSISTANT C.I.T. (TDS),CIRCLE, GURGAON V/S . SERCO BPO PVT. LTD. BLDG. NO.8, 6 TH FLOOR, CYBER CITY, DLF, PH-II, GURGAON [PAN : AABCV 2572 L ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANONEET DALAL, AR REVENUE BY DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 22-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-12-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 21.09.2012 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 11.07.2012 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-FARIDABAD, R AISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION OF R ULE 46A OF I.T. RULES IN ACCEPTING THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT DUE TAXES RELATABLE TO TH E PAYMENT OF RENT WAS PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE I.E. M/S I NFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD., (IISPL) WITHOUT GIV ING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO WITH REGARD TO SUCH MATERIAL EVIDENCE. 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE PROVISION OF EXP. (I) T O SECTION 1941 WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT RENT MEANS ANY PAYMENT WHATEVER NAME CALLED, UNDER ANY LEASE SUB L EASE, TENANCY OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT FOR T HE USE OF LAND OR BUILDING WHICH HOLDING THAT PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO IISPL FOR USE OF PREMISES WAS NOT PAYME NT OF RENT SO NOT LIABLE FOR TDS U/S 1941 BUT ONLY REIMBU RSEMENT ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 2 OF RENTAL EXPENSES LIABLE FOR TDS U/S 194C AS THERE WAS FACILITY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND IISPL. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN ALLOWI NG RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON DECISION OF HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES LTD. VS. CIT (93 ITR 226) IN IGNORING THA T THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS M/S IISPL WAS ONLY A MEDIATOR FOR AND NOT THE ULTIMATE RECIPI ENT OF RENT AND DISCHARGING OF TAX LIABILITY BY THE ULTIMATE RE CIPIENT OF RENT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL). 2. AT THE OUTSET, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ISSUE AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A),THE BENCH REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNME NT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE & PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. 3. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE TH AT A SURVEY/TDS INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.01. 2010 FOR VERIFICATION OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACTUAL WO RK U/S 194C, RENTAL PAYMENTS U/S 194-I, INTEREST ON LOAN U/S 194 A AND PROFESSIONAL PAYMENTS U/S 194 J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER [AO IN SHORT] NOTICED DURING THE INSPECTION AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, TH E ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE UNDER FACILITY AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.194 C OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF U/S 194-I APPLICABLE IN THE CAS E . MOREOVER, THERE WAS DELAY IN DEDUCTING OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS AS DETA ILED ON PAGE 2 TO 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO RAISED THE DEMAND OF TDS U/S 201 OF THE ACT BESIDE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF T HE ACT, AS DETAILED HEREUNDER: FINANCIAL YEAR DEMAND RAISED U/S 201(1) [IN ` ] DEMAND RAISED U/S 201(1A) [IN ` ] TOTAL DEMAND RAISED [IN ` ] 2008-09 40,38,830 6,15,260 46,54,090 ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 3 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY OF FIVE DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND REDUCING INTEREST CHARGED FOR LATE PAYME NT OF TDS BY ` ` 43,012/-, CANCELLED THE DEMAND OF ` ` 40,38,830/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AND INTER EST OF ` `5,39,229/- ON PAYMENTS MADE TO INFOVISION INFORMAT ION SERVICE PVT. LTD. IN TERMS OF THE FACILITY AGREEMENT, HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6.2. THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF ` `40,38,830/- AND INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 201(LA) OF ` .5,39,229/- ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. U NDER THE FACILITY AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABO VE PAYEE COMPANY. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN P ARA 2.1.5, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID FACILITY CHARG ES MAINLY RENT IN RESPECT OF 13 PREMISES AS PER COPY OF AGREEMENT FIL ED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH WERE TAKEN IN THE NAME OF INFOVISION INFO RMATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION D ATED 31.03.2009 (PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THE NAME OF INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN CHANGED TO ADMA SOLUTION S PVT. LTD. ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 27.02.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 44.36 CRORES AND HAS PAID TAXES BY WAY OF TDS OF ` .3,57,03,657/- AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF ` .7,84,61,315/- AS PER COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCL E-L(L), NEW DELHI, IN THIS CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10, A COPY OF WHI CH HAS ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HO N'BIE SUPERNE COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. (293 ITR 226) THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95-IT(B) DATE D JANUARY 29,1997, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE S, SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY. THE CIRCULAR DECLARES T HAT 'NO DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER SECTION 201 (1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE O FFICER-IN-CHARGE OF TDS, THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE- ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARG E INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (LA) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMEN T OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE ASSESSEE OR THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LILLY AND CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. (312 ITR 225) HOLDING THAT ONCE THE DEDUCTEES HAVE PAID TAXES ON THEIR SALARY INCOME BY WAY OF SELF ASSESSMENT TA X, TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYERS UNDER SECTION 201(1 ) OF THE ACT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE OTHER JUDICIAL RULINGS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL WHICH SUPPORT THE CASE OF APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. HAS DISCHARGED ITS E NTIRE TAX LIABILITY ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 4 BY WAY OF TDS AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX, NO DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS CAN BE FURTHER ENFORCED. THERE FORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE TDS DEMAND OF ` .40,38,830/- FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RENT REIMB URSED TO ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEMAND OF TDS OF ` .40,38,830/ - IS CANCELLED AND APPELLANT GETS A REL IEF OF ` .40,38,830/-. THE ONLY DISPUTE REMAINS REGARDING CH ARGING OF INTEREST. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE APPELLANT AHS FIL ED COPIES OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVI CES PVT. LTD. ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE PREMISES WHICH WERE UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER FACILITY AGREEMENT WERE TAKEN ON RE NT BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND THE DUE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. FROM THE RENT PAYMENTS. THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER TENANT NOR SUB T ENANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PREMISES BUT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RENT PAID BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN REIMBURSED. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDA BAD IN THE CASE OF KARNAVATI CO-OP BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (134 ITD 486) WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT DELHI 'F' BENCH IN THE CASE OF EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CP' [(2010) (2 ITR (TRIB.) 153 (DELHI)] HAS BEEN REFERRED TO. IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT WHERE CERTAIN CHARGES WERE REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE CHARGES BEING IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT, THE S AME WERE NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS IT WOULD TA NTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAME PAYMENT. SIN CE THE TDS WAS ORIGINALLY DEDUCTED BY INFOVISION INFORMATION S ERVICES PVT. LTD. FROM THE PAYMENT OF RENT MADE TO THE OWNERS OF THE PREMISES AND THE APPELLANT HAS ACTUALLY REIMBURSED THE RENTAL EX PENSES, THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT T AX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE RATIONALE LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS CI TED SUPRA. CONSEQUENTLY, NO INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE FOR NON DE DUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THE INTEREST OF ` .5,39,229/- CHARGED BY THE AO IS CANCELLED. 5. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IN THEIR APPEAL, VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 HAS BEEN ALLEGED. HOWEVER, TO A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. DR APPEAR ING BEFORE US DID NOT POINT OUT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS ADMI TTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 . THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD . AR RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 5 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THRO UGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOOK OVE R THE RUNNING BUSINESS OF INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.[IISPL][NO W KNOWN AS ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.] RUNNING BPO BUSINESS AT ITS VARIOUS LOCA TIONS. IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.12.2008, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TENANTED PREMISES, ELECTRICITY, WATER & TELEPHONE C HARGES SHALL CONTINUE TO BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALTHOUGH THESE FACILIT IES WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF IISPL, FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM 1.12 .2008 TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS.. THUS ,THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED USE OF 13 TENANTED PREMISES IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT DATED 01.12.2008 ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE CONS IDERATION FOR USE OF FACILITIES WAS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 3.1 OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 3.1 SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 3.2 BELOW, IN CONSIDERATION OF IISPL PERMITTING SERCO BPO THE USE OF SERCO BPO FACILITIES, SERCO BPO SHALL PAY TO IISPL FOR EACH PREMISE, THE SUM AS STATED IN SCHEDULE A (LESS APPLICABLE TAX DEDUCTIONS OF CHARGES FOR THE SERCO BPO FACILITIES)(THE 'CONSIDERATION'). IN ADDITION IISPL WILL MAKE A MONTHLY LUMP SUM REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM ON SERCO BPO FOR ELECTRICITY WATER DATACOMM AND INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND OTHER VARIABLE CHARGES BASED ON ACTUAL. IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT DEDICATED LINKS (IPLC, LOCAL LOOP & INTERNET LINKS) WHICH ARE IN THE NAME OF IISPL/SERCO BPO WILL BE USED AND IISP WOULD MAKE PAYMENT TO RESPECTIVE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP) AND SHALL CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT AS ABOVE. ANY APPLICABLE SERVICE TAX ON THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT SHALL BE EXTRA.' 6.1 THUS, IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT, ON TAKING OVER BUSINESS OF IISPL , THE LATTER ALLOWED THE USE OF VARIOUS FA CILITIES REGISTERED IN ITS NAME INCLUDING THE TENANTED PREMISES TAKEN BY IT, ON ACT UAL PAYMENT BASIS . IN NUTSHELL, ALL THE PAYMENTS IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE RE MITTED TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES BY IISPL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACTUA L PAYMENT BASIS. THE ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 6 ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 194 C OF THE ACT EVEN ON THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT ON ACTUAL BASIS TO IISPL, BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION AND NOT U/S 194I OF THE ACT, THERE BEING NO SUB TENANCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND IISPL IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE PREMISES. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TAX WAS REQUIRED TO DED UCTED AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194I OF THE ACT FROM PAYMENTS M ADE BY ASSESSE TO IISPLWHILE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT DID NOT OCCUPY THE PRE MISES AS A TENANT OR SUB- TENANT AND REIMBURSED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID BY IIS PL TO ITS LANDLORDS. ON APPEAL, SINCE THE IISPL HAD PAID TAX IN PURSUANCE T O RETURN FILED ON 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH E LD. CIT(A) RELYING UPON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HI NDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT,293 ITR 226(SC);KARNAVA TI CO-OP. BANK LTD. VS. DCIT,134 ITD 486(AHMEDABAD),EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONA L INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT,2 ITR(TRIB.)153(DEL.) AND CIRCULAR NO.275/201/9 5-IT(B) DATED JANUARY 29, 1997, CANCELLED THE DEMAND FOR TDS AS ALSO INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT A TENANT OR SUB-TENANT OF THE AF ORESAID 13 PREMISES. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE IISPL I.E. ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. DISCHARGED ITS ENTIRE TAX LIABILITY AND THERE WAS NO SUCH TENANCY OR SUB- TENANCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE PREMISES WHICH W ERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE FACILITY AGREEMENT DATED 1.12.2008 WERE ACTUALLY TAKEN ON RENT BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND THE D UE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. FROM T HE RENT PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT A TENANT OR SUB TENANT IN RESPE CT OF THE SAID PREMISES, ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RENT PAID BY INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVI CES PVT. LTD. ALONE WAS REIMBURSED FOR USE OF FACILITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE L D. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TA X AT SOURCE & THEREFORE, NO INTEREST WAS CHARGEABLE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY INTEREST EITHER AS A LESSEE OR SUB-LESSEE OR A TENANT IN ANY OF THE AFORESAID 13 PREMISES. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED USE OF PREM ISES BY IISPL IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT DATED 1.12.2008, CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCL USION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 7 ANY INTEREST AS A LESSEE, SUB-LESSEE OR TENANT OVER THE VARIOUS PREMISES. THE RIGHT TO USE ANY LAND OR BUILDING NECESSARILY IMPLI ES THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOME INTEREST IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS A TENANT . THE EXISTENCE OF A LANDLORD- TENANT RELATIONSHIP OR A LICENSOR-LICENSEE IS A MUS T BEFORE A PAYMENT IN QUESTION CAN BE TERMED AS A RENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SU CH MATERIAL IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO NOR THE LD. DR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E ANY SUCH MATERIAL ,EVIDENCING EXISTENCE OF A LANDLORD-TENANT RELATION SHIP OR A LICENSOR-LICENSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT CIRCULAR NO. 275/201/95-IT(B) DATED JANUARY 29, 1997, ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND REFERRED T O IN THE AFORESAID DECISION IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ENVISAGES THAT NO DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN-CHARG E OF TDS, THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE- ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SUCCINCTLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TENANCY OR SUB-TENANCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND IISPL, AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194I O F THE ACT OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TA X AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT REIMBURSED TO IISPL IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT DATED 1.1 2.2008. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PL ACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS RECORDED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER NOR BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE ANY MATERIAL, EVIDENCING ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR ANY TENANCY OR SUB-TENANCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE & IISPL OR EVEN ANY CONTRARY DECISION, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT HAVE BEEN MADE. ITA NO. 5003/DEL./2012 8 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. SD/- SD/- (C.M.GARG) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. ASSISTANT C.I.T.(TDS),CIRCLE, GURGAON 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A), FARIDABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT