Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chd v. Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Ambala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.106 of 2012 (O&M)Date of Decision:11.12.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chd. .... Appellant Versus Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Ambala .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocatefor the respondent. ***** Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral) By way of this order, we will decide ITA Nos.106 to 112 of2012 and ITA Nos.185, 200, 252 of 2014 filed by the revenuechallenging order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holdingthat for want of proof of a works contract and failure to prove creationof tangible assets/infrastructure, the assessee is not liable to pay taxunder Section 194(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to bereferred as the Act). Counsel for the revenue submits on instructions basedupon letter dated 01.12.2014, issued by Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)-2, Chandigarh that though is true that the assessee does not fallunder Section 194(C) of the Act but as the assessee's income fallsunder Section 194(J) of the Act, she has instructions to withdraw theassessment order but with liberty to proceed under Section 201(1A) of the Act from the stage of service of the show cause notice andexamine the matter in its entirety under Section 194(J) of the Act. Counsel for the respondent states that though the revenuehas withdrawn the assessment order, the question of delay inassuming jurisdiction under Section 201(1) of the Act may be left openand it may be directed that in case the department takes assistance oftechnical experts etc. the respondent should be granted adequateopportunity to produce its own experts to prove that the electricitysupplied by Electricity Boards does not fall within the ambit of Section194(J) of the Act. We have heard counsel for the parties. In view ofstatement made by counsel for the revenue, withdrawing theassessment order, the orders passed by CIT(A) and the ITAT shallcease to exist. The appeals are therefore, disposed of as infructuous.The Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed afresh from thestage of service of show cause by serving a detailed show cause noticesetting out parameters for his proposed consideration. All legalobjections relating to assumption of jurisdiction, delay, if any, etc.shall be open to the respondents. (RAJIVE BHALLA)JUDGE 11.12.2014sonia (B.S.WALIA)JUDGE