Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Assistant Manager (Accounts), Fci

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.724 of 2008Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. The Assistant Manager (Accounts), FCI. -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant.----- ORDER: The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the orderdated 16.1.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench ‘A’, in I.T.A. No.704/Chandi/2007 for the assessment year 2005-06, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in upholding thatprovisions of section 194A, 194I and 194C were notapplicable as no payment has been made separately onaccount of interest, rent etc. The transaction was atransaction of purchase & sale and not payment ofexpenses.” The assessee is a Government undertaking. TheAssessing Officer created a demand, on the allegation that theassessee failed to make deductions at source in respect of paymentsmade towards transportation and other charges. The demand wasupheld by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal set aside the same on the groundthat the payments made were not on behalf of the assessee but werepart of cost of procurement of wheat and thus, provision for deductionat source was not applicable. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. It is not disputed that in an identical matter, this Court hastaken the same view and upheld the view of the Tribunal in order dated21.8.2008 in I.T.A. No.407 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Chandigarh v. The Assistant Manager (Accounts). In view of above, we are unable to hold that any substantialquestion of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )JUDGEJUDGE December 22, 2008ashwani ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE