Learned Counsel For The Revenue Fairly Conceded That This Courtin The Case Of The Assessee Itself, Namely Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds v. Tribunal

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O.R.D.E.R D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.158/2016Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), JaipurVs. M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited Date of Order: 04/08/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. R.B. Mathur Adv., for appellant. 1.Instant income tax appeal u/Sec.260A of the Income Tax Act (inshort, 'the Act') is directed against order dt. 27.01.2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). It relates tothe assessment year 2012-13. 2.Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that this Courtin the case of the assessee itself, namely Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. (DB ITANo.109/2015) vide judgment dt. 08.01.2016, relevant for theassessment year 2009-10 and Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs.M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. (DB ITA No.112/2015)decided on 05.05.2016, relevant for the assessment years 2010-2011& 2011-12, has already taken into consideration the self samecontroversy which has been raised by the Revenue and has held thatno substantial question of law emerge out of the orders of the Tribunal. 3.This Court, taking note of the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the revenue in DB ITA No.109/2015 (supra) held as under:- “The CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have alsoalternatively relied upon the judgment rendered by theHon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca ColaBeverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : [2007] 293 ITR 226 to contend that where the deductee, recipient of income has already paid taxes on amount received fromdeductor, the Revenue once again cannot recover tax from deductor on same income by treating deductor tobe assessee-in-default for shortfall in its amount of taxdeducted at source. In our view, when we have alreadycome to the conclusion that provisions of Section 194-Jon facts are inapplicable, then question of tax havingbeen paid by the recipient of income, loosessignificance.” 4.In view of the self same question having been alreadyconsidered as aforesaid wherein this court did not find any substantial question of law to emerge, we do not find any merit in the instantappeal as well and the same being devoid of merits, is accordinglydismissed. (AJAY RASTOGI), J.