Subsequently The Apex Court Has Also Delivered The Judgment In The Case Of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ( v. The Appeals Are Thus Disposed Of Finally. No Costs

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 63 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Kanpur And AnotherRespondent :- Jaypee Sports International Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja AgarwalAnd Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 68 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds) Kanpur And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Jayepee Infratech Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal And Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 69 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds) And AnrRespondent :- Jaypee Sports International Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal And Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 70 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds) And AnrRespondent :- Jaypee Sports International Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 71 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Kanpur And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Jaypee Infratech Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal And Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 72 of 2018Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Kanpur And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Jaypee Infratech Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav MahajanCounsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. Heard learned counsel for the department SriGaurav Mahajan and learned counsel for therespondent Ms. Pooja Agarwal. As the controversy involved in these appealsis identical, the same is being decided by thecommon order treating the Income TaxAppeal no.63 of 2018 as the leading case. Income Tax Appeal no.63 of 2018 has beenfiled by the department under section 260Aof the Income Tax Act against the judgmentand order of the tribunal dated 23.11.2007for the assessment year 2011-12. Thequestions of law sought to be answered areas under: "1. Whether the tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty ofRs.7,55,18,885/- imposed under section 271-C of the Act being sum equalto amount of tax which the assessee failed to deduct on lease rent andinterest paid to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authorityamounting to Rs.7,55,18,885/- u/s 194-I, 194-A of the Act? 2. Whether the tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that therewas sufficient/reasonable cause as contemplated u/s.273-B of the Act forthe assessee's failure to deduct tax at source without upsetting/reversingthe finding recorded by the Assessing Authority in the penalty orderpassed u/s 271-C of the Act? 3. Whether in view of the fact that the department has challenged the orderof the tribunal dated 31.8.2017 passed in ITAT Nos.4279/Del/2015 to4281/Del/2015 in appeal u/s.260-A of the Act before this Hon'ble Court,deleting the additions made in the order passed u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of theAct, can the order of the tribunal be sustained?" The tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee giving it the benefit of theprovisions of section 273-B of the Act, whichprovides that in case of a reasonable cause,penalty otherwise, exigible under section271-C of the Act could not be imposed. The tribunal came to the conclusion that inthe facts of the case, no addition of tax atsource could make prior to the year of surveyon 24.2.2014 and no other order against theassessee required deduction of tax at sourceat that time when the assessee made payment of lease rental, was existing. The judgment of Delhi High Court withregard to lease money being treated as rent,was only delivered on 16.2.2017 casting anobligation on the assessee to makededuction of tax at source on these rentalso. The tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee giving it the benefit of theprovisions of section 273-B of the Act, whichprovides that in case of a reasonable cause,penalty otherwise, exigible under section271-C of the Act could not be imposed. The tribunal came to the conclusion that inthe facts of the case, no addition of tax atsource could make prior to the year of surveyon 24.2.2014 and no other order against theassessee required deduction of tax at sourceat that time when the assessee made payment of lease rental, was existing. The judgment of Delhi High Court withregard to lease money being treated as rent,was only delivered on 16.2.2017 casting anobligation on the assessee to makededuction of tax at source on these rentalso. Subsequently the Apex Court has alsodelivered the judgment in the case of NEWOKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY(NO.2)VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND OTHERS reported in(2018) 406 ITR 209 (SC) in which the ApexCourt has opined that word 'rent' means anypayment by whatever name called under anylease, sub-lease, tenancy or any otheragreement or arrangement for the use of anyland and came to the conclusion that leasemoney or annual rent is rent within themeaning of section 194-I of the Act. In view of the above, we are of the opinionthat the matter requires fresh considerationby the tribunal. We therefore remand thematter back to the tribunal and the matter tribunalremand shall be reconsidered by thewithin a period of three months from the date of issuance of a certifiedcopy of this order. The appeals are thus disposed of finally. No costs. Order Date :- 25.4.2019rk