Itxa/818/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I,Kolhapur v. Doodhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.818 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax - I,Kolhapur . ...Appellant V/s.Doodhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar.Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur...Respondent Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, Advocate, for the Appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar, Advocate, for the Respondent. P.C. : .Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellantand the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2.We have perused the Judgment of the Tribunaldated 13th January, 2006. In the above, the Appellantis seeking to raise the following three substantialquestions of law :- (a).Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in relying on the findings of CIT(A) who held that the assessee was not liableto deduct tax from the payments made to the contractors to the extent of Rs.5,40,33,969/-even though the payments are covered under theprovisions of section 194 C? (b).Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT waslegally justified on overlooking theprovisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A),which are both compensatory and mandatory innature? (c).Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT waslegally justified in holding that provisionsof section 201(1) and 201(1A) are dependentupon ultimate tax liability of the deducteeeven when at the time of making payment it wasnot possible for assessee to know the taxliability of the payee? 3.After perusal of the Judgment, we find thatthe above questions of law do not at all arise out ofthe aforesaid Judgment. In view therefore, the Appealis totally devoid of merits and the same standsdismissed. : 3 : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]