The DGM, BSNL, NTR, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 560/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8663 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SUD
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.559, 560, 561 & 562(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-09, 2008-09, 2009-2010 & 2010 -11 PAN :AABCB5576G THE DGM, BSNL, NTR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MTCE, MASTER TARA SINGH NAGAR, TDS-II, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.RAVISH SUD, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:29/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12/02/2015 ORDER PER B.P.JAIN,AM: THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR DATED 18.04.2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-2010 & 2010-11. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING TAK EN UP BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS U NDER. 2. IN ITA NO.559(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 2 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) & 201(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS.201(1)(201(1A ) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. NAGPAL H OSPITAL, M/S. ESCORTS HOSPITAL AND M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS. 2 01(1) & 201(1A) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SH. DEVI TAL AB HOSPITAL, DMC AND ASCON. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE T HAT SEC. 194J CONTEMPLATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ONLY WITH R ESPECT TO FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THEREFORE EVEN OT HERWISE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AS REGA RDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HOSPITALS, IN TOTO, AS SUCH. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, THE CIT (A) EVEN OTHERWISE ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT NOW W HEN THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES , THEREIN THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW CO ULD NO LONGER BE HELD AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND FURTHER BE FASTENED WITH INTEREST U/S 201(1) BEYOND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEES. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO HOLDING TH E ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) AND THEREIN SUSTAINING THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND OF RS.41,184/- AND RS.14,8 26/- UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 3 3. IN ITA NO.560(ASR)/2013 FOR THE AY. 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) & 201(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS.201(1)(201(1A ) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. TAGORE H OSPITAL, NAYYAR HOSPITAL, M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL AND M/S. ESCORT S HOSPITAL. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS. 2 01(1) & 201(1A) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL, SH. DEVI TALAB HOSPITAL, DMC, LUDHIANA A ND M/S. ASCON. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE T HAT SEC. 194J CONTEMPLATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ONLY WITH R ESPECT TO FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THEREFORE EVEN OT HERWISE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AS REGA RDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HOSPITALS, IN TOTO, AS SUCH. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, THE CIT (A) EVEN OTHERWISE ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT NOW W HEN THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES , THEREIN THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW CO ULD NO LONGER BE HELD AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND FURTHER BE FASTENED WITH INTEREST U/S 201(1) BEYOND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEES. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO HOLDING TH E ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) AND THEREIN SUSTAINING THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND OF RS.1,00,207/- AND RS.24 ,050/- UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 4 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN ITA NO.561(ASR)/2013, FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) & 201(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS.201(1)(201(1A ) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. TAGORE H OSPITAL, NAYYAR HOSPITAL, M/S. KAMAL HOSPITAL AND M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS. 2 01(1) & 201(1A) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL, M/S. CMC, LUDHIANA AND M/S. ASCON. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE T HAT SEC. 194J CONTEMPLATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ONLY WITH R ESPECT TO FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THEREFORE EVEN OT HERWISE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AS REGA RDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HOSPITALS, IN TOTO, AS SUCH. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS.201(1) & 20 1(1A) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,58,387/- MADE TO M/S. MOHAN DEVI CANCER HOSPITAL. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS. 201(1) & 2 01(1A) OF THE ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 5 ACT AS REGARDS THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT TOWARDS COMMIS SION MADE TO M.S.T.C. 7. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, THE CIT (A) EVEN OTHERWISE ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT NOW W HEN THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES , THEREIN THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW CO ULD NO LONGER BE HELD AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND FURTHER BE FASTENED WITH INTEREST U/S 201(1) BEYOND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEES. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO HOLDING TH E ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) AND THEREIN SUSTAINING THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND OF RS.92,654/- AND RS.11,1 18/- UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. 9. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN ITA NO.562(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) & 201(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS.201(1)(201(1A ) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. TAGORE H OSPITAL, M/S. KHANNA NURSING HOME AND M/S. JOSHI HOSPITAL. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE T HAT SEC. 194J CONTEMPLATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ONLY WITH R ESPECT TO FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THEREFORE EVEN OT HERWISE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AS REGA RDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HOSPITALS, IN TOTO, AS SUCH. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 6 4. THAT THE CIT(A) MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN ER RED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/SS. 201(1) & 201 (1A) AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,91,627/- MADE TO M/S. M OHAN DAI CANCER HOSPITAL. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, THE CIT (A) EVEN OTHERWISE ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT NOW W HEN THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES , THEREIN THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW CO ULD NO LONGER BE HELD AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND FURTHER BE FASTENED WITH INTEREST U/S 201(1) BEYOND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEES. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE BY PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO HOLDING TH E ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) AND THEREIN SUSTAINING THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND OF RS.90,315/- IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN APPLICATION FOR AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATES, COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCO ME OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS HOSPITALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010- 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED DUE TO NON -COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE AND LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES. TH ESE COULD BE GATHERED ONLY AFTER THE CULMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SINCE THE PAYMENTS HAVE DULY BEEN CREDITED BY THE HOSPIT ALS THE PAYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND PURSUANT THERE OF SUBJECTED TO TAXES IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF HINDUSTAN ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 7 COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2 007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95/IT(B), DATED 29.01. 1997, THE ASSESSEE NO MORE REMAINS IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. IN THE APPLICATION WITH THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RU LE 19 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED, IN ADDITION A CHART, EXPLAINING THE HOSPITAL-WISE DETAILS OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED AND THE OUTCOME OF EACH HOSPITAL THE PAYEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE SAID CHART CONTAINING THE DETAILS, CONTENDI NG THAT SINCE THEY WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT DO SO NOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FIND CONSTRUCTIVE REASONING IN SUBMITTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND CHART CONTAINING THE DETAILS BEFORE US, WHICH WILL ENABLE US TO PASS THE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SU PRA). THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ACCORDINGLY ADMITTED. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS IN ALL THE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010- 11 ARE THAT A TDS INSPECTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 05.01.2010 AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PERSON RESPONS IBLE HAD NOT DEDUCTED ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 8 ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT TO VARIOUS HOSPITALS O N ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL SERVICES I.E. THE CASH LESS MEDICAL SERVICES PROVI DED TO ITS EMPLOYEES. NO EXPLANATION FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAXES WAS FILED BE FORE THE AO. THE AO IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11 HAS TREATED THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF T AX NOT DEDUCTED AND INTEREST THEREON UNDER SECTION 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT RE SPECTIVELY. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 APART FROM NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE TO HOSPITALS, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ON COMMISSIO N PAYMENT TO M/S. M.S.T.C. FOR MAKING SALE OF SCRAP AND ALSO ON PERQU ISITES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE FORM OF PROVIDING RENT FREE ACCOMM ODATION, NO TDS WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSEE BEING PERSON RESPONSIBLE WAS TREATED TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) OF I.T. ACT. 10. ITA NO.559(ASR)/2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08: THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AT PAGES 3 TO 7 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE HEREINBELOW: 7. ALONGWITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE BIFURCATI ON OF PAYMENTS MADE TO DIFFERENT HOSPITALS IS FILED AND IN CERTAIN CASES THE CERTIFICATES FROM THE HOSPITALS THAT THEY REFLECTED THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS ARE FILED. IN CERTAI N CASES, THE CERTIFICATES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONCERNED HOSPI TALS INCOME WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION WERE ALSO FILED. (I) AY 2007-08: FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED, IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S TAGORE HOSPITAL, M/S SOOD CHIL DREN HOSPITAL, M/S SACHAR HOSPITAL, M/S KIDNEY HOSPITAL, M/S KAPPO R HOSPITAL, M/S GURU AMAR DAS HOSPITAL, M/S CIVIL HOSPITAL AND M/S ADESH MEDICAL ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 9 INSTITUTE WERE LESSER THAN RS. 20,000/- DURING THE YEAR HENCE THEY ARE CLEARLY OUT OF PURVIEW OF TDS AND THE ASSESSEE IS N OT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION. FROM THE CERTIFICATE FILED ON BEAHALF OF M/S NAGPAL HOSPITAL, M/S ESCORTS HOSPITAL AND M/S GHAI HOSPITAL IT IS NOT CL EAR AS TO WHETHER AND WHEN DUE TAXES ON THE RECEIPTS FROM ASSESSEE, W ERE PAID. THE CERTIFICATE ONLY STATE THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE REFLEC TED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. I FEAR THIS INFORMATION I S NOT SUFFICIENT TO APPLY THE DECISION OF HON S.C. IN CASE OF M/S HINDU STAN COCA COLA BEWERAGES LTD. 163 TAXMAN 355 WHEREIN IT IS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT IF THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE. EVEN IN THAT CASE, INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IS LEV IABLE UPTO THE DATE OF PAYMENT BY IT. IN VIEW OF THIS NO RELIEF IN GIVEN T O ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON PRODUCING COMPLETE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE MAY APPROACH THE AO FOR REMEDIAL ACTION, IF APPLICABLE AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF I.T.ACT. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI DEVI TALAB HOSP ITAL, DMC AND ASCON IT IS CLAIMED THAT THESE HOSPITALS ARE RUN BY EXEMPTED ENTITITES BEING RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUSTS HENCE NO TDS WAS TO BE MADE: FIRST AND FOREMOST IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER THESE ARE EXEMPTED ENTITIES OR NOT, AS NO DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THIS CO NTENTION IS FILED EXCEPT A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S ASCOM. SECONDLY, I DONT FIND ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT THAT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MA DE TO CHARITABLE/EXEMPTED ENTITIES THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS AND ALSO INSUFFICIENT DETAILS, NO R ELIEF CAN BE ALLOWED. AY 2008-09: IN THIS YEAR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S PRUTHI HOSPITAL, M/S NAGPAL HOSPITAL, M/S KIDNEY HOSPITAL, M/S JOSHI HOSPITAL AND M/S CMC PKT ARE LESSER THAN RS.20,000/ -. IN VIEW OF THIS ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT IN RE SPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAXES ON PAYMENTS MADE. IN RESPECT OF M/S TAGORE HOSPITAL, M/S NAYYAR HOSPI TAL, M/S GHAI HOSPITAL AND M/S ESCORTS HOSPITAL THE CERTIFICATES FOR INCUSION OF RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS ON THE PATTER N AS IN AY2007-08 IS FILED. FOLLOWING MY ORDER IN AY 2007-08, THE REMAIN S THE SAME AND NO RELIEF IS GRANTED. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 10 IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATES FILED CLAIMING THE PAPER S ARE EXEMPTED ENTITIES IN RESPECT OF M/S SACRED HEART HOSPITAL, S H. DEVI TALAB CHARITABLE HOSPTAL, M/S DMC, LUDHIANA AND M/S ASCOM FOLLOWING MY ORDER IN AY 2007-08, NO RELIEF IS ALLOWED. AY 2009-10: FOLLOWING MY ORDER IN AY 2007-08, SINCE THE PAYMENTS OF M/S JOSHI HOSPITAL, M/S OM PRAKASH SATY AM NARAIN, M/S DMC LUDHIANA AND M/S CIVIL HOSPITAL PTK, ARE LESS T HAN RS. 20,000/-, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT OF NON DEDUCTION ON ITS PAYMENTS MADE T THEM. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO M/S MMTC OF COMMISSION, E XPLANATION GIVEN IS THAT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN C OCA COLA BEWERAGES 163 TAXMAN THE ASESSEE MAY NOT BE TREATED IN DEFAULT. NO DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY M/S MTC IS GIVEN ALO NGWITH THE REPLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF THIS INFORMATION, NO RELI EF CAN BE GIVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN RESPECT OF ONE PAYMENT OF RS.42,600/- WHICH WAS MADE ON ORDER OF THE COUNT AFTER A SUIT WAS FILED BY AN EMPLOYEE, NO DETAILS ARE AS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT AS MADE IS GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THIS NO RELIEF AT THIS STAGE CAN BE GRANTED. IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATES FROM M/S TAGORE HOSPITAL , M/S NAYYAR HOSPITAL, M/S KAMAL HOSPITAL AND M/S GHAI HOSPITAL FOR INCLUSION OF RECEIPTS FROM ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS , THE DECISION REMAINS THE SAME AS IN AY 2007-08. IN RESPECT OF ONE PAYMENT OF RS.3,58,387/- MADE TO M/S MOHAN DEVI CANCER HOSPITAL IT IS CLAIMED THAT SINCE IT IS AN O UTDOOR TREATMENT HENCE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 194-J OF I.T. ACT S ECTION 194-J OF I.T. APPLIES TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ON PROFESSIONAL SE RVICES AND THE CHARACTER OF PAYMENT CANT CHANGE BECAUSE THE PAYME NT WAS FOR OUTDOOR TREATMENT. THE SERVICES OF THE HOSPITAL REM AIN IN THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO RELIEF I S ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT ALSO. IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PERQUISITE TO THE EMPLOYEES IN SHAPE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION, THE ASSESSEE STAT ES THAT AGAINST THE ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 11 DEMAND OF RS.72756/- A PAYMENT OF RS.87165 HAS ALRE ADY BEEN MADE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND GIVE EFFECT. IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATES FROM M/S SACRED HEART HO SPITAL, M/S CMC AND ASCOM TO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE EXEMPTED ENTITIES, THE DECISION REMAINS THE SAME AS IN AY 2007-08. AY 2010-11: FOLLOWING MY ORDER IN AY 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR LESS THAN RS.20,000/- TO M/S SACHAR HOSPITAL, M/S RAJA DIAGNO STIC CENTRE, M/S MODERN HOSPITAL, M/S KIDNEY HOPITAL, M/S BBC HEART CARE AND M/S ANIL BHAGI HOSPITAL. IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATES FROM M/S TAGORE HOSPITAL , M/S KHANNA NURSING HOME M/S AND M/S JOSHI HOSPITAL FOR INCLUSI ON OF RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT, THE DECISION REMAINS THE SAME AS IN AY 2007-08. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF M/S GHAI HOSPITAL AND M/S CMC, LUDHIANA IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE TAXES WERE PAID. THE AO TO VERIFY AND GIVE EFFECT. IN CASE THERE IS A DELAY IN PAYMENT, INTER EST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF I.T.ACT IS TO BE CHARGED. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 1,91,627/- TO M/S MOHA N DAI CANCER HOSPITAL OUTDOOR TREATMENT, FOLLOWING MY OWN ORDER IN AY 2009-10 NO RELIEF IS ALLOWED. IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATES CLAIMING M/S SACRED HEAR T HOSPITAL AND M/S ASCOM BEING TAX EXEMPTED ENTITIES, FOLLOWING MY OWN ORDER IN AY 2007-08 THE DECISION REMAINS THE SAME. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAVISH SU D, ADVOCATE, ARGUED THAT A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE T HE AO WHO DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN T HE PAYEES HAD ALREADY PAID THE TAXES ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE ASS ESSEE, THEN AS PER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 12 BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE TAX ONCE AGA IN COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTE D BY THE AO, SINCE THE MATTER IS SUB-JUDICE BEFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BEN CH AND THE AO DOES NOT HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES HAVE AL READY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, I N ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE C ASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD. VS. CIT(SUPRA), THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES HAD PAID THE TAX ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.A. IS PAHANI TRUST VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2013) 216 TAXMAN 1 ( MAD) OBSERVED THA T THERE WAS NO FINDING RENDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH REGARD TO TH E PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE PAYEES AND ITS QUANTUM AND IN ALL FAIRNESS REMITTED THE MATER BACK TO THE AO TO RE-WORK THE QUANTUM OF LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT ON THE SIMILAR LINES TO THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO TO RE- ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 13 WORK THE QUANTUM OF LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN F ACT, THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THE YEARS EXCEPT GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND GROUND NO.4 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 WHERE ALSO HE PRAYED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RECIPIENTS AND THE SAME MAY BE REMITTED TO THE AO TO RE-WORK THE QUANTUM OF LIABILITY OF THE A SSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONCEDED THE ARG UMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, IN THE CASE OF M/S . NAGPAL HOSPITAL, M/S. ESCORTS HOSPITAL AND M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL, THE LD. CI T(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE CERTIFICATES FROM THESE HOSPITALS THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE RE SPECTIVE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTED AS AN ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATES, RETURNS OF INCOME, PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEES HOSPITALS SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE PAYMENTS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND TH E SAME IS ASSESSED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. WITH REGARD TO SH. DEVI TALAB CHA RITABLE HOSPITAL, M/S. DMC, LUDHIANA AND M/S. ASCOM HOSPITAL, THE LD. CIT( A) REJECTED THE ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 14 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE INSUFFICIENT D ETAILS AND IN CASE OF M/S. RAJA HOSPITAL, M/S. HOLY CHILDREN HOSPITAL AND M/S. FORTIS HOSPITAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. BY WAY OF GROUND NO.5 AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY US HEREINABOVE, TAX CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSES SEE SINCE THE TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME IN VI EW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN CO CA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 13.1 IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. V S. CIT (SUPRA), WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED HEREINBE LOW: 2. THIS APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE PREFERRED BY THE APPEL LANT ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COUR T DT. 11 TH OCT., 2006 IN IT APPEAL NO. 478 OF 2005 [REPORTED AS CIT VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. (2007) 207 CTR (DEL) 1 19-ED.]. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 4. THE APPELLANT ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SOFT DRINKS. THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION FOR USE OF THEIR PREMIS ES FOR RECEIPT, STORAGE AND DISPATCH OF GOODS BELONGING TO THE APPE LLANT COMPANY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE WAREHOUSING ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 15 CHARGES TO M/S PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED UNDER S. 194C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT) @ 2 PER CENT. THE AO VIDE ORDER DT. 30 TH MARCH, 2001 HELD THE APPELLANT TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF WAREHOUSING CHARGES PAID TO M/S PRADEEP OIL CORPORA TION. THE AO REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WERE IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED UNDER S. 194C OF THE ACT AT 2 PER CENT. THE AO ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE WAREHOUSING CHARGES WE RE IN THE NATURE OF RENT AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO S. 194-I OF TH E ACT AND, THEREFORE, TAX OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT 20 PER CENT UNDE R THE SAID PROVISIONS AS AGAINST DEDUCTION OF TAX AT 2 PER CEN T UNDER S. 194C OF THE ACT. THE AO HAVING HELD THE APPELLANT TO BE AS SESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR THE SHORTFALL IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE LEVIED INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX AL LEGED TO BE SHORT DEDUCTED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND ALSO LEVIED INTEREST PAYABLE T HEREON UNDER S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 5. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE TO B E AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AND ALSO UPHELD THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE FURTHER APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WAS DISM ISSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 21 ST MAY, 2004. 6. THE APPELLANT THEREAFTER PREFERRED MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION IN THE APPEALS THAT WERE ALREADY DISPOSED OF SEEKING R ECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 12 TH JULY, 2002. BE IT NOTED, THE APPELLANT DID NOT RAISE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT IT BEING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND ALSO RAISED NO OBJECTION AS REGARDS THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT IT S ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION THAT THE WAREHOUSER HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON ITS INCOME AND THE TAX DUE HAS BEEN RECOVERED FROM IT BY THE DEPAR TMENT AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER TAX COULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDE R DT. 12 TH JULY, 2002. THE CONTENTION WAS THAT SINCE THE TAX TO BE R ECOVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE, NO FURTHER TAX SHOULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT ON THE SAME ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 16 INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 13 TH SEPT., 2004 ALLOWED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. THE CONTENTION WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED IN GROUND NO.7 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT . THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY HELD, TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS A MISTAK E APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND, THEREFORE, CONSTITUTES A RECTIF IABLE MISTAKE UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY RECALLE D ITS EARLIER ORDER DT. 12 TH JULY, 2002 FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF TAKING UP TH E PARTICULAR GROUND RAISED IN GROUND NO.7 IN THE MEMORANDUM OF A PPEAL. THIS ORDER DIRECTING THE REOPENING OF THE MATTER HAS ATT AINED ITS FINALITY. THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE SAID ORDER. 7. THE TRIBUNAL UPON REHEARING THE APPEAL HELD THAT T HOUGH THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE AN ASSES SEE IN DEFAULT, THERE COULD BE NOT RECOVERY OF THE TAX ALLEGED TO B E IN DEFAULT ONCE AGAIN FROM THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THAT PRADEEP O IL CORPORATION HAD ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. IT IS REQUIRED TO NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT CONCEDED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RECOVERY COULD NOT ONCE AGAIN BE MADE FROM THE TAX DEDUCTOR WHERE THE PAYEE INCLUDED THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX WA S ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SHORT DEDUCTED IN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WHATSOEVER THAT PRADEE P OIL CORPORATION HAD ALREADY PAID THE TAXES DUE ON ITS INCOME RECEIV ED FROM THE APPELLANT AND HAD RECEIVED REFUND FROM THE TAX DEPA RTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX ONCE AGAIN COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT (DEDUCTOR-ASSES SEE) SINCE THE TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME. 8. THE HIGH COURT INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER DT. 12 TH JULY, 2022 OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY SINCE THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE SAME BY THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COU RT ON 21 ST MAY, 2004., THE POINT BASED ON GROUND NO.7 WAS NOT TAKEN UP IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE HIGH COURT. THE H IGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DT. 12 TH JULY, 2002 GOT ITSELF MERGED INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY IT ON 21 ST MAY, 2004 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN. THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLU SION THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE REOPENED THE MATTER FOR ANY FURTHER HEARING. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 17 9. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO REOPEN THE MATTER FOR FURTHER HEARING AS REGARDS GROUND NO.7 HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HI GH COURT COULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 10. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95-I T(B), DT. 29 TH JAN., 1997 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OP INION, SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY. THE CIRCULAR DECLARES N O DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE IT ACT SHOUL D BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN-CHAR GE OF TDS, THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER S. 201 (1A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE O R THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE I.T.ACT. 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE INTEREST UNDER S. 201(IA) OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN PAID BY DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE (M/S. PRADEEP OIL CORPORA TION). IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS SITUATION ON HAND. 12. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO IN DETAIL AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL COULD HAVE AT ALL REOPENED THE APPEAL TO RECTIFY THE ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. WE DO NOT WISH TO EXPRESS ANY FIRM VIEW ON THIS ASPECT.S 13. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO CO STS. 13.2. THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUP RA), WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.A . ISPAHANI TRUST VS. ITO (SUPRA), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT : IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LT D. VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 IT WAS HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSE SSEE WAS HELD TO ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 18 BE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THERE COULD BE NO RECOVE RY OF THE TAX ALLEGED TO BE IN DEFAULT ONCE AGAIN FROM THE ASSESSEE CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT HAD ALREADY PAID THE TAX ON THE AMOUN T RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE APEX COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE CIRCULA R ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN CIRCULAR NO.275/20 1/P5/IT(B) DATED 29.1.1997 WHEREIN IT WAS DECLARED THAT NO DEMAND VI SUALIZED U/S 201(1) SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HA S SATISFIED THE REVENUE THAT TAXES DUE HAVE PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-AS SESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, IT WAS HOWEVER POINTED OUT THAT SUCH POSI TION WOULD NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE ASSESSEE. GOING BY THE SAID DECISION, WHAT EMERGED WAS THAT THE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HEREIN WAS HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THEM, IF THE SAME HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT VIZ., TNREL. HO WEVER, IT WAS HELD THAT, THAT WOULD NOT ABSOLVE THEIR LIABILITY T O PAY INTEREST U/S 201(1A) FROM THE DATE OF ITS LIABILITY TILL THE DAT E OF ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE RECIPIENT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO THE PAYM ENT OF TAX BY THE RECIPIENT AND ITS QUANTUM. THEREFORE, THE MATTER WA S REMITTED BACK TO THE AO TO RE-WORK THE QUANTUM OF LIABILITY AS WELL AS THE INTEREST IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION. IT WAS DIRECTED THAT T HE AO SHOULD FIND OUT AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE RECIPIENT HAD PAID THE TAX. I F THE ENTIRE TAX AMOUNT AS CLAIMED FROM THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT, THEN THERE COULD NOT BE ANY FURTHER DEMA ND OF THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE RECIPI ENT HAD ONLY PAID PART OF THE TAX AMOUNT, THEN REST OF THE SAME SHALL BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS THE INTEREST DEMAND WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS HELD THAT, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE INTER EST FROM THE DATE OF ITS LIABILITY TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE RECIPIENT. 13.3. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUP RA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF S.A. A. ISPAHANI TRUST VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE, IF THE ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 19 SAME HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT MENTIONED IN TH E CASE OF HOSPITALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-WORK THE QUANTUM OF LIABILITY OF TAX, IF ANY, AND AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE RECIPIENT HAD PAID THE TA XES. IF THE ENTIRE TAX AS CLAIMED FROM THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEE N PAID BY THE RECIPIENT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER DEMAND OF THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE RECIPIENT PAID ONLY PART OF THE TAX, REST OF THE SA ME HAS TO RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE. OUR DECISION, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT(SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF S.A.A. ISPAHANI TRUST VS. ITO (SUPRA) DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST U/S 201(1A) FROM THE DATE OF HIS LIAB ILITY TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE RECIPIENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS FRES H ORDER. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.559(ASR)/2013 IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. ITA NOS. 560 TO 562(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.YS. 200 8-09 TO 2010-11: NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS S IMILAR TO THE ISSUE AS DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 20 15. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09, THE ISSUE IS SIMILAR AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DECIDED B Y US HEREINABOVE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE AO IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HEREINABOV E WITH REGARD TO THE RECIPIENTS/PAYEES THE VARIOUS HOSPITALS IN THE IMP UGNED YEAR AS UNDER: I) M/S. TAGORE HOSPITAL II) M/S. NAYYAR HOSPITAL III) M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL IV) M/S. ESCORTS HOSPITAL V) M/S. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL VI) SHRI DEVI TALAB HOSPITAL VII) M/S. DMC VIII) M/S. ASCOM IX) M/S. SACHHAR HOSPITAL X) M/S. FORTIS HOSPITAL XI) M/S. CMC HOSPITAL ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR EXCEPT THE NAME OF THE HOSPITALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE AS DECIDED BY US FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HEREINABOVE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE MATTER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE AO IN VIEW OF ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 21 OUR DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HEREIN ABOVE WITH REGARD TO THE RECIPIENTS/PAYEES THE VARIOUS HOSPITALS IN THE IMP UGNED YEAR AS UNDER: I) M/S. NAYYAR HOSPITAL II) M/S. KAMAL HOSPITAL III) M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL IV) M/S. TAGORE HOSPITAL V) M/S. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL VI) M/S. CMC HOSPITAL VII) M/S. ASCOM HOSPITAL VIII) M/S. SACHHAR HOSPITAL IX) M/S. RAJA DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE X) M/S. MOHAN DAI CANCER HOSPITAL ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR EXCEPT THE NAME OF THE HOSPITALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSU E AS DECIDED BY US FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HEREINABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE MATTER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS ALSO REMITTED TO THE FIL E OF THE AO IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HEREINABOV E WITH REGARD TO THE RECIPIENTS/PAYEES THE VARIOUS HOSPITALS IN THE IMP UGNED YEAR AS UNDER: I) M/S. JOSHI HOSPITAL II) M/S. TAGORE HOSPITAL III) M/S. KHANNA NURSING HOME IV) M/S. GHAI HOSPITAL V) M/. CMC HOSPITAL ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 22 VI) M/S. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL VII) M/S.ASCOM HOSPITAL VIII) M/S. KARAM SINGH MHC IX) M/S. MOHAN DAI CANCER HOSPITAL ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR EXCEPT THE NAME OF THE HOSPITALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE IN ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/ (A.D.JAIN) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE DGM, BSNL, NTR MTCE, MASTER TARAN SINGH NAGAR, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ITO TDS-II, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. ITA NOS. 559 TO 562(ASR)/2013 23