D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hati Bhata, Ajmer

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 104 / 2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),, JAIPUR. ----Appellant Versus AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., HATI BHATA, AJMER. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. MathurFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 06/04/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department confirming the order ofthe CIT(A). 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 09.07.2013 hasframed the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wasjustified in law in deleting the penalty ofRs.1,56,57,968/-imposedbythecompetent authority under Section 271C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wasjustified in placing reliance on the case ofJVVNL, Jaipur; and as to whether the caseof JVVNL was not different on materialparticulars?” 3.Counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of thesubsequent decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Principal Officer JVVNL in DB Income TaxAppeal No.422/2011 and other connected matters, decided on19.10.2016 and more particularly in para 4 & 5 held as under: “4. The assessee was bound to deduct TDSin lieu of services received by them and forthe services received by them was liable topay tax within the meaning of Explanation 2to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. However counsel for the respondent Mr. Jhanwar contended that the issue is concluded in view of the followingdecisions : 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 239 (SC), 2. Union of India Vs. Satish Panalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC), 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JaipurVidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. D.B. ITA No.579/2009, High Court of Judicature forRajasthan, Jaipur 4. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bharti Cellular Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 139 (Del.), 5. Skycell Communications Ltd. and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax andOrs. (2001) 251 ItR 53 (MAD.), 6.M.S.JewelleryVs.AssistantCommissioner (ASSESSMENT) AgriculturalIncome Tax and Sales Tax and Anr. (1994)208 ITR 531 (KER.), 7. CIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (2015) 119 DTR (BOM)278, 8. Commissioner of Income Tax-II and Ors.Vs Delhi Transport Ltd. Manu/ DE/2199/2015.” 4.In that view of the above observations, the issues areanswered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 5.The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/71