Vodafone Cellular Limited 1045 v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2.The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Tds Circle

DATED: 26.11.2014 Date of Reserving the JudgmentDate of Pronouncing the Judgment24.11.201426.11.2014 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. Nos.30650 to 30652 of 2014 & Connected Mps. Vodafone Cellular Limited1045-1046, Avinashi Road,Coimbatore 641 018,Tamil Nadu... Petitioner in all W.Ps.Vs1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle, 46, 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore. .. Respondents in all Wps. Common Prayer :-Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records comprised in order bearing Ref.C.No.CIT (A)(II)/PDL/6/CMBB03049E/14-15 dated 17.10.2014, passed by the RespondentNo.1, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents toforbear from acting in pursuance or in furtherance of assessmentorders dated 29.03.2014 & 3012.2013 & made in TAN No.CMBB03049E undersection 201(1) and 201(A) of the Act by the Respondent No.2, for theAssessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, pending disposal of theAppeal filed before the Respondent No.1 against the said assessmentorder. For petitioner .. Mr.Arvind (P) Datar,Sr.Counsel for Mr.Satish Parasaran For Respondents .. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E R Since the prayer sought for in all these Writ Petitions areidentical these Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposedof by this common order. 2(a)The petitioner in these writ petitions seeks for issuance ofwrit of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondentdated 17.10.2014, rejecting the Stay Petition filed by thepetitioner, praying for grant of stay of the demands payable pursuantto the orders of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theassessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. (b)Pursuant to the survey conducted under section 133 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), on 17.09.2013, the petitioner wasissued a notice by the second respondent stating that there wasomission on their part to deduct tax at source in respect of theCommission payments on pre-paid charges and it is proposed to raisedemands in respect of such commission payments as in the previousyears. It was further stated that as the proposed order undersections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act will be in respect of thedefault under section 194H of the Act, the petitioner was directed tosubmit their objections to the said notice dated 21.10.2013,pertaining to the financial years 2012-13 & 2013-14. (c)By communication dated 16.12.2013, the petitioner submittedcertain details which information was sought for by the secondrespondent during the course of personal hearing on 10.11.2013.Thereafter, assessment orders were passed for the assessment years2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 on 30.12.2013. The petitioner filed aStay Petition before the second respondent under section 220(6) ofthe Act on 31.01.2014, in respect of the demands made pursuant to theassessment orders dated 30.12.2013, for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The petitioner preferred Appeals to the firstrespondent against the assessment orders dated 30.12.2013, passed bythe second respondent in respect of the assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 on 03.02.2014. (d)The second respondent passed an order rejecting the StayPetition by an order dated 07.02.2014. Thereupon the petitionerfiled a Petition before the first respondent praying for stay ofdemand till the disposal of the Appeals, which were pending as AppealNos. 305/13-14 and 308/13-14, for the financial years 2012-13 and2013-14. (d)The second respondent passed an order rejecting the StayPetition by an order dated 07.02.2014. Thereupon the petitionerfiled a Petition before the first respondent praying for stay ofdemand till the disposal of the Appeals, which were pending as AppealNos. 305/13-14 and 308/13-14, for the financial years 2012-13 and2013-14. (e)With regard to the assessment year 2012-13, the secondrespondent passed order of assessment on 29.03.2014, confirming theproposal and a notice of demand was issued on 29.3.2014, demanding asum of Rs.10,05,75,866/- for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent against thesaid order of assessment dated 29.03.2014 for the assessment year2012-13. On 30.4.2014, the petitioner filed a Stay Petition undersection 220(6) of the Act in respect of the demand made in terms ofthe assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13. The secondrespondent by an order dated 20.6.2014, following its earlier orderdated 07.02.2014, for the assessments years 2013-14 and 2014-15,rejected the Stay Petition. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a StayPetition before the first respondent on 01.07.2014. The Stay Petitionfiled by the petitioner for the three assessment years wereconsidered by the first respondent and by order dated 17.10.2014, thesame came to be rejected. Challenging the said order, these WritPetitions have been filed. 3.Mr.Arvind P Datar, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner made an elaborate reference to the nature of transactiondone by the petitioner with its customers in the matter of sale ofprepaid sim cards and the distinction between the transaction inrespect of prepaid sim cards and post-paid sim cards were placed forthe consideration of this Court. 4.It is submitted that the authority without considering theStay Petition in a proper perspective and without assigning anyreason, much less proper reasons, has rejected the Stay Petition. Itis submitted by way of illustration that if the cost of the pre-paidsim card is Rs.100/-, the petitioner would sell the same to hisWholesale Distributor at Rs.80/- and the Distributor furtherdistributes the same to his Sub-Distributors, which could containdiscounts and the Distributor does not ipso facto earn income just bypurchasing the coupons from the petitioner and only if he is able todistribute them will it be treated as income earned by theDistributor. Hence there is no fixed amount of income from thedistribution agreement. Further it is submitted that the transactionbetween the petitioner and its pre-paid Distributor as being onprincipal to principal basis, the question of deducting TDS does notarise. Further, it is submitted with regard to the decision ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal on the TDS liability for the assessmentyears 2007-2008 and 2008-09, the same is pending before this Court inT.C.Appeal Nos. 308 & 309 of 2011 and conditional interim order hasbeen granted and 50% of the demand has been paid. 5.Learned Senior Counsel after inviting the attention of thisCourt to the averments in the Stay Petition, submitted that thepetitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Kerala High Courtin the case of M/S HAMEED AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES 7OTHERES [249 ITR 186]; the decision of the Gujarat High Court in thecase of AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA [(2002) 257ITR 202]; the decision of the Allahadbad High Court in the case ofJAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED [345 ITR 288] and the decision of theKerala High Court in the case of KERALA STATE STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION v. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AND ORS [ 282 ITR 7],however, without reference to those decisions, the first respondentmechanically rejected the Stay Petition, without considering thethree essential requirements viz. prima facie case, balance ofconvenience and irreparable hardship. ASSOCIATION v. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AND ORS [ 282 ITR 7],however, without reference to those decisions, the first respondentmechanically rejected the Stay Petition, without considering thethree essential requirements viz. prima facie case, balance ofconvenience and irreparable hardship. 6.Further it is submitted that the issue with regard toliability to effect TDS on discount on prepaid coupons is pendingbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of other telecomoperators and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also granted interimrelief in those cases. 7.Further the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case ofAHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSN.(supra), has been confimed by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDORS. v. AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION [(2012) 348 ITR 378(SC)], which was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.0.2012and that should have been taken note by the authority whileconsidering the Stay Petition. Further, it is submitted that inrespect of Stamp Vendors Association, in respect of Milk VendorsAssociation and transactions relating to Soft Drinks, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has taken a view that there is no requirement ofdeduction of TDs in identical type of transactions and therefore thepetitioner having established a prima facie case and the balance ofconvenience being in their favour, the first respondent ought to havestayed the demand till the disposal of the Appeals. 8.Per contra, Mr. T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, assisted byMr.S.Rajkumar, appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the orderpassed in respect of the earlier assessment orders of the petitioner/assessee, is now pending before this Court in T.C.Nos. 308 & 309 of2011 and the tax case has been admitted on 09.09.2009 and interimorder has been granted subject to deposit of 50% of the demand. Itis submitted that the effect of the decision in the case of AHMEDABADSTAMP VENDORS ASSN.(supra), and the types of transaction done by thepetitioner/assessee has to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtand as on date, the first respondent was fully justified in followingthe earlier order passed in respect of the assessment years 2007-08and 2008-09, which has been decided in favour of the Revenue. 9.Further, the respondent cannot ignore its earlier orders. Itis submitted that though hearing notice was given to the petitionerand they were directed to produce required details, they have notproduced the same and at present they cannot contend that theaccounts are on all India basis, etc. and having not produced theaccounts as called for, the petitioner cannot claim that mattershould be remanded for fresh consideration before the authority. 10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side andperused the materials placed on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.So far as the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12,the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has upheld the orders ofthe Assessing Officer, wherein identical issue has arisen forconsideration. In so far as assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09,Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the order of theAssessing Officer and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rejectedthe petitioner's appeal and the petitioner has filed Tax Case(Appeals) before this Court and it is pending consideration and aconditional order of stay has been granted. 12.The question which falls for consideration in these WritPetitions is as to whether the first respondent ignoring its earlierorder in respect of the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 isrequired to pass an order on the Stay Petition to stay the demandpursuant to the assessment orders relevant to these Writ Petitions. 12.The question which falls for consideration in these WritPetitions is as to whether the first respondent ignoring its earlierorder in respect of the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 isrequired to pass an order on the Stay Petition to stay the demandpursuant to the assessment orders relevant to these Writ Petitions. 13.Before considering this issue, it has to be noted that anotice was issued to the petitioner on 19.9.2014, calling upon thepetitioner to produce copies of Books of Accounts maintained by them,to verify the balances/fund available as on date. The petitioner didnot produce the same and even after expiry of two weeks, thepetitioner did not produce the cash position so as to examine thematter regarding their financial constraint claimed by the petitionerfor non-payment TDS. The first respondent appears to have drawn anadverse inference and in my view, rightly so. Learned Senior counselappearing for the petitioner also states that all was not well as tothe manner in which the petitioner seeks to justify the nonproduction of Accounts. 14.Be that as it may, unless and until the petitioner placesmaterials before the first respondent, pleading financial incapacityor inability to pay the demand, pending decision of the Appeal, theauthority who is consider the Stay Petition cannot be faulted forhaving taken a decision that the petitioner/applicant has notestablished a prima facie case. 15.The sheet anchor of the contentions raised by the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the decision inthe case of AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSN.(supra), has been upheld bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court and that transaction is akin to that of thesale of prepaid sim cards and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thatthere was no error in the discount given to the Stamp Vendors forpurchasing stamps in bulk quantity and the same is in the nature ofcash discount and in the circumstances the transaction is a sale andconsequently, section 194 H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has noapplication. By placing reliance on the decision, it is submittedthat the Officer should have considered this issue when thepetitioner has relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court. 16.It is to be pointed out that in respect of the petitioner,for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2007-08, identical issues arosefor consideration before the Kerala High Court. One of the issuewhich fell for consideration in those cases is regarding the paymentsmade for services rendered by the Distributors under the pre-paidscheme. The appellant therein took a stand that the supply of simcards, recharge coupons etc., under the prepaid scheme is sale ofgoods at discounted price by the Assessee and besides the discountgiven at the time of sale of these items, Assessee is not paying anycommission or crediting any commission in the account of thedistributors and so much so, Assessee is not liable to deduct andremit tax at source in terms of Section 194H of the Act. Consideringthe said submission, the Division Bench of the Kerla High Court heldas follows: "6. Senior counsel appearing for the assessee hasrelied on several judgments, particularly two decisionsof this court in M.S.HAMEED V. DIRECTOR OF STATELOTTERIES reported in (2001) 114 TAXMAN 394 (KER.) andKERALA STATE STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION V. OFFICE OF THEACCOUNTANT GENERAL reported in (2006) 150 TAXMAN 30(KER.), the decision of the Gujarat High Court inAHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIAreported in (2002) 124 TAXMAN 628 (GUJ.), and thedecision of the Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX V. QUTAR AIRWAYS in I.T.A. No.99 of 2009 dated26.3.2009. The first decision of this court pertains tosale of lottery tickets wherein this court held that thecommission given by way of discount at the time of saleof lottery tickets is not a commission on which tax isdeductible under Section 194G of the Act. The seconddecision of this court pertains to sale of stamp paper bythe licensed stamp vendors wherein also the finding ofthis court following the decision of the Gujarat HighCourt in AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS' case is that thetransaction is sale of goods and so much so, no deductionof tax is called for under Section 194G of the Act. Sofar as the lottery ticket is concerned, the transactionis different and the Supreme Court has held that thetransaction is sale of goods and so much so, the decisionrendered by this court has no application in regard tocommission paid by the assessee to the distributors inthe form of discount which we have found to be in essenceand substance for rendering services. The next judgmentrelied on by the petitioner which is in KERALA STAMPVENDORS ASSOCIATION case rendered by one of us(C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.), relates to sale of stamppaper by the licensed vendors. Here again, this court byrelying on decision of the Gujarat High Court inAHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS case held that the transaction is a sale. On a reconsideration of this judgment, we feelthis court's judgment may require reconsideration becauseconsideration received by the stamp vendors for the stamppaper does not really represent it's value but is nothingbut stamp duty. Value of each stamp paper may be fiftypaise or even a rupee, whatever be it's quality, but whatis collected depends on the amount stamped thereon whichis nothing but stamp duty recovered by the State from theultimate user in terms of the Stamp Act. Rightly orwrongly this court held that the transaction is salebecause loss of stamp paper is to the account of thestamp vendors, if it is lost in their custody. TheGovernment also treats the transaction as sale of goodsand specific exemption is granted from payment of salestax in terms of provisions of the Sales Tax Act.Therefore, the finding that Section 194H is notapplicable is on the specific finding in that case thatthe transaction is sale of goods, whereas in this casefollowing the Division Bench judgment of this court wehave found that the distributor is paid commission in theform of discount for services rendered to the assessee.Therefore, none of these decisions relied on by theassessee applies to the facts of this case which ispayment of commission by way of discount for servicesrendered by the distributor. Senior counsel for theassessee has in support of his contentions relied on thefollowing decisions of the Supreme Court also, ADDITIONALCOMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTHMANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION reported in (1980) 121 ITR 1,KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX reported in 82 ITR 363, COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX V. MOTORS 7 GENERAL STORES (P) LTD. (1967) 66 ITR692, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. AJAX PRODUCTS LTD.(1965) 55 ITR 741, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V.B.C.SRINIVASA SETTY (1981) 128 ITR 294, TUTICORIN ALKALICHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (1997) 227 ITR 172 and decisions of House of Lords inINLAND REVNUE COMMISSIONERS V. WESLEYAN GENERAL ASSURANCESOCIETY reported in (1948) 16 ITR 101 and anotherdecision in REVENUE COMMISSIONERS V. DUKE OF WESTMINSTERreported in (1936) A.C. 1. However, on going throughthese judgments we do not find any of the judgment hasany direct application to the facts of this case. Thevery scheme of deduction of tax at source under theIncome Tax Act is to trace recipients of income and theiraccountability to the department for payment of tax onvarious transactions. In fact, major portion of theincome tax collection is through recovery of tax atsource and but for the mechanism, there would have beenmassive evasion of tax by the recipients of various kinds of income. The trend in legislation is to increasecoverage for recovery of tax at source and on a steadybasis various services are brought under the TDS schemeso that tax evasion is avoided. We have already takennote of the provision under Section 197 of the Act whichmitigates against hardship if any in recovery of tax inas much as a payee is entitled to approach the departmentand apply for certificate to receive any amount whichwould be otherwise subject to deduction of tax at sourcewithout recovery of any tax or on recovery at lesserrates. We are of the view that the grievance if anyagainst recovery of tax by the assessee is on thedistributors, and they are already on the roles of thedepartment because assessee is making deduction of tax atsource for payment of commission made under the post paidscheme. As already pointed out, if distributors have anygrievance against assessee recovering tax for thecommission paid in the form of discount in respect ofprepaid services, any such distributor is free toapproach the department for getting his grievanceredressed by filing an application under Section 197 ofthe Income Tax Act. However, we make it clear that thisis not the ground on which we have held the assesseeliable for recovery of tax at source under Section 194Hwhich is only because we have clearly found that thediscount paid to the distributors is for service renderedby them and the same amounts to "commission" within themeaning of that term contained under Explanation (i) toSection 194H of the Act. The impugned orders issued underSection 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are onlyconsequential orders passed on account of defaultcommitted by the assessee under Section 194H and,therefore, those orders were rightly upheld by theTribunal. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals filed bythe assessee. " It is submitted that as against the Judgment of the Kerala HighCourt, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal and the matter is nowpending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17.It is to be stated that the decision of the Kerala High Courtin the case of the petitioner/assessee referred supra was followed bythe Delhi High Court and Calcutta High Court. Learned Seniorcounsel submits that Karnataka High Court has taken a different view.However, as on date in the assessee's own case, the decision of theKerala High Court supports the stand of the Revenue. In suchcircumstances, the first respondent while considering the Petitionfor Stay, took note of the earlier orders for the assessment years2009-10 to 2011-12, which was on the same issue and pending as Appeal before the Tribunal and in respect of assessment years 2007-08 and2008-09, it has been affirmedby the Tribunal and in the absence ofproduction of Bank Accounts and fund availability, etc., rejected theStay Petition. Thus, while applying the three cardinal principleswhile considering the Stay Petition, the decision in the assesses owncase as on date stands concluded in favour of the Revenue. Therefore,to that extent the petitioner has not been able to establish a primafacie case. 18.So far as the balance of convenience and hardship isconcerned, despite opportunity, the petitioner did not produce therecords nor there was any attempt made by the assessee to seek forfurther time to produce the records and it appears that there was nospecific pleading in the Stay Petition about the financial capacity,even before the second respondent when the first petition for staywas presented on 31.12.2014. 18.So far as the balance of convenience and hardship isconcerned, despite opportunity, the petitioner did not produce therecords nor there was any attempt made by the assessee to seek forfurther time to produce the records and it appears that there was nospecific pleading in the Stay Petition about the financial capacity,even before the second respondent when the first petition for staywas presented on 31.12.2014. 19.Section 220 of the act would treat an assessee to be anassessee in default when he does not meet the tax liability inrespect of the demand raised by demand notice under section 156 ofthe Act. The discretion conferred on the Assessing Officer under subsection (6) of Section 220 of the Act, is not an arbitrary power, buta power coupled with responsibility and the assessing officerconcerned should take all the circumstances into account and all theconsiderations that could be urged by the assessee as to why heshould not be treated as "not being in default" and then make anorder as is provided to the facts of the case. [see MahalingamChettiyar (MLM) vs. ITO [(1967) 66 ITR (Madras)]. 20.The other principle which has to be borne in mind is withregard to the fair chance of success of the assessee in its appeal,apart from hardship which the assessee will be put to or financialsoundness of the assessee. Further more, when the demand in disputerelates to issues which was decided in favour of the Revenue by theAppellate Authority and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, thenit would have a direct bearing on the case of the assessee in respectof the subsequent demand against which appeal has been preferred.However, the underlying principle is that the grant of stay is amatter of discretion, mere pendency of the appeal before theappellate authority will not amount to automatic stay of the demand. 21.A contention was raised by the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner stating that the impugned order is not a speaking orderand devoid of reasons. The assessing officer or that matter, theappellate authority should take into consideration the facts placedby the assessee and the factors and circumstances pleaded by them.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that in the assess's owncase for the earlier assessment years, the order of assessment hasbeen upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, inrespect of the anterior period i.e. for 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), against which the petitioner has preferred Tax CaseAppeal Nos.308 & 309 of 2011, which has been admitted by the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court on 09.09.2011 and an order of interimstay has been granted, subject to the condition the petitioner pays50% of the demand. 22.Therefore, in my view though the reasoning of the firstrespondent while rejecting the Stay Petition cannot be faulted in itsentirety, but the fact that on the date when the order was passed,the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have noted that theappeal arising out of the assessment orders for the years 2007-08 and2008-09, has been entertained by the Hon'ble Division Bench of thisCourt in TCA No. 308 & 309 of 2011 and appeals have been admitted on09.09.2011 and interim order has also been granted. 23.This undoubtedly would be a very relevant factor to considertwo of the cardinal tests viz. prima facie case and balance ofconvenience. If the legal issue is now pending before the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court and order of interim stay has beengranted, subject to certain conditions, that should have beenconsidered by the first respondent while passing the impugned orderdated 17.10.2014. 23.This undoubtedly would be a very relevant factor to considertwo of the cardinal tests viz. prima facie case and balance ofconvenience. If the legal issue is now pending before the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court and order of interim stay has beengranted, subject to certain conditions, that should have beenconsidered by the first respondent while passing the impugned orderdated 17.10.2014. 24.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is notinclined to interfere with the impugned order on the grounds raisedby the petitioner stating that the decision of the Gujarat High Courtought to have been taken note of by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), despite the fact that in the assessee's own case, theDivision Bench of the Kerala High Court has held against theassessee. However, considering the fact that in respect of theearlier assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, in respect of theidentical transaction TCA Nos. 308 & 309 of 2011 are pending beforethe Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and have been admitted onthe following questions of law viz. "1.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that thetransaction between the appellant and the distributors ofits prepaid SIM cards and recharge coupons was a contractof agency and not on a principal-to-principal basis ? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that thediscount offered on provision of Prepaid SIM cards and pre-paidrechargecoupons(refill/rechargeslip,refill/recharge cards, e-topup) i.e. pre-paid talk-time isa commission envisaged under section 194H of the Income TaxAct ? 3.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that taxdeduction provisions can be applied to unascertained orindeterminable amounts in view of the unworkability ofcomputation provisions in such cases ? 4.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding thatSection 194H will apply to cases where a person neithermakes payment nor credits any sum to account to anotherperson ?" and conditional order of stay has been granted, this Court is of theview that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interimorder subject to certain conditions. 25.Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed bydirecting the petitioner to deposit 50% of the entire demand inrespect of all the three assessment years viz. 2012-13, 2013-14 and2014-15, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order and if such direction is complied with, theremaining amount demanded shall remain stayed till the disposal ofthe appeal by the first respondent. If the direction is not compliedwith, within the time permitted, the benefit of this order will notenure to the petitioner and the Writ Petition would stand dismissedwithout further reference to this Court. No costs. Consequently,connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpaTo1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle, 46, 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore. + 2 ccs to M/s. Satish Parasaran, Advocate sR.57308+ 1 cc to Mr.T. Pramodkumar, Advocate SR.56949 RBD(CO)Eu 3.12.14 W.P. Nos.30650 to 30652 of 2014