bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.603 OF 2005 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.608 OF 2005 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.414 OF 2006 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.486 OF 2006 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.479 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.50 OF 2006 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.442 OF 2006 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.443 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.167 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.196 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.197 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.199 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.200 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.229 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Viswasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan h/f. Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant in all matters. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for respondent in all matters. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused appeals. 2. The questions sought to be raised in all the above appeals read as under: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in relying on the finding of CIT(A) who held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax from the payment made to Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Oos Todani Vahatuk Sanstha Ltd. amoutning to Rs.3,17,35,341/- even though the payments are covered under the provisions of Section 194C ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) is dependent upon ultimate tax liability of the deductee, which in any way a future possibility obly that too may arise after the end of the financial year, therefore, deductor need not to deduct tax from the payment made to the deductee during the financial year ? c) Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the provisions of Sub Section (4) & (5) of Section 194C (as it stood in the relevant period), as per which tax can be deducted at a lower rate or not to be deducted at all if the deductee furnishes a certificate to such effect after obtaining the same from Assessing Authority during the financial year to the deductor, which in this case deductee failed to do ? d) Whether the law laid down by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Shri Synthetics Ltd. 151 ITR 0634(MP), CIT Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 140 ITR 0818(MP) and Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) is not applicable to the distinguishable and peculiar facts of the respondent’s case ? e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in overlooking its earlier judgment on similar issue in case of ACIT, TDS-1 Vs. Chief Officer, Walchandnagar Industries, Pune ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally justified in overlooking the provisions of Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), which are both compensatory and mandatory in nature ? g) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that in case of technical default, no order could have been passed ? 3. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has recorded a finding reading as under: “...................even otherwise, for these years the payee society did not have any taxable income and, therefore, there was no requirement for deduction of tax on payments made to it by the deducting society and consequently, the question of charging of interest u/s.201(1A) for these years simply does not arise. As a result, it is held that for all the three years, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) against the appellant tax deductor are without any basis and the same are cancelled.” 4. In view of this clear finding of fact, all the above appeals stand dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)