IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.724 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant Vs. The Assistant Manager (Accounts), FCI. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. ----- ORDER: The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, in I.T.A. No.704/Chandi/2007 for the assessment year 2005- 06, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in upholding that provisions of section 194A, 194I and 194C were not applicable as no payment has been made separately on account of interest, rent etc. The transaction was a transaction of purchase & sale and not payment of expenses.” I.T.A. No.724 of 2008 The assessee is a Government undertaking. The Assessing Officer created a demand, on the allegation that the assessee failed to make deductions at source in respect of payments made towards transportation and other charges. The demand was upheld by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal set aside the same on the ground that the payments made were not on behalf of the assessee but were part of cost of procurement of wheat and thus, provision for deduction at source was not applicable. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. It is not disputed that in an identical matter, this Court has taken the same view and upheld the view of the Tribunal in order dated 21.8.2008 in I.T.A. No.407 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. The Assistant Manager (Accounts). In view of above, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 22, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2