Itxa/281/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Pune v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd

Sonali Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Pune .. Appellantv/s.M/s.Vodafone Cellular Ltd...Respondent ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Pune .. Appellant v/s.M/s.Vodafone Cellular Ltd. ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Pune .. Appellant v/s.Vodafone Cellular Ltd. ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Pune .. Appellant v/s.Vodafone Cellular Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr.Pritesh Chatterjee for Appellant.Ms. Mrunal J. Parekh i/b. DMD Advocates for Respondent. CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. P. C.:- DATE : JANUARY 27, 2020. .This order will dispose of the above four appeals. 2.Heard Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel revenue forthe appellant and Ms.Mrunal J. Parekh, learned counsel for therespondent-assessee. 3.Without entering into the details of each of the appeals wemay note that the appeals have been preferred projecting thefollowing questions as substantial questions of law : “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in holding the discounts given bythe assessee to its distributors on prepaid SIM cards does notrequire deduction of tax u/s. 194H of the Act and subsequentpenalty u/s.271C is not applicable ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in setting aside the case tothe AO.” 4.At the outset, we may mention that the appeals filed by therevenue on quantum i.e. ITXA No. 1152 of 2017, ITXA No. 1274 of2017, ITXA No. 1995 of 2017, ITXA No. 571 of 2018 and ITXA No.1266 of 2018 have been dismissed by us today confirming thefinding of the Tribunal regarding non-applicability of Section 194Hto discounts given by the assessee to the distributors of prepaid SIMcards. 5.The present bunch of appeals pertains to orders of penaltyimposed by the Assessing Officer on the respondent which has beeninterfered with by the Tribunal. 6.Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel revenue fairlysubmits that this issue has been gone into by this Court in IncomeTax Appeal No. 1384 of 2017, Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), Pune v/s. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd., decided on 13[th] January, 2020. The said judgment deals with identical questions. In that case thisCourt held that the assessee cannot be considered as an assessee indefault and, therefore, not liable for penalty. 7.Consequently and following the decision of this Court in M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd., we also hold that no substantial question of lawarises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. 8.Thus appeals are devoid of merit and are accordinglydismissed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN,J.)