C I TTDS JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJ KNOWLEDGE CORP LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/158/2016HC RajasthanRJHC02060938201604 August 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order for assessment year 2012-13. This decision is based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, acknowledging that this Court had already considered and decided the identical controversy in previous appeals concerning the same assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. In those prior judgments, the Court had found no substantial question of law. The Court reiterated its reasoning from the earlier cases, which relied on the Apex Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, stating that if the deductee has already paid taxes on the income received, the Revenue cannot recover tax again from the deductor as an assessee-in-default for a shortfall in TDS. Since the applicability of Section 194-J was already held to be not applicable in prior cases, the significance of tax payment by the recipient lost its relevance. Therefore, the present appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited, and the appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur. The Revenue's counsel conceded that this Court had previously dealt with the same controversy in appeals relating to the assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. In those prior appeals, the Court had held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT for assessment year 2012-13, given the prior judgments of this Court on similar issues for the assessee. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel conceded that the same controversy had been raised and decided by this Court in previous appeals for the assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, and in those cases, the Court had held that no substantial question of law emerged from the ITAT's orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 194-J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O.R.D.E.R D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.158/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur Vs. 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 (in short, 'the Act') is directed against order dt. 27.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). It relates to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that this Court in the case of the assessee itself, namely Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. (DB ITA No.109/2015) vide judgment dt. 08.01.2016, relevant for the assessment 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 same controversy which has been raised by the Revenue and has held that no substantial question of law emerge out of the orders of the

2 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 also alternatively relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : [2007] 293 ITR 226 to contend that where the deductee, recipient of income has already paid taxes on amount received from deductor, the Revenue once again cannot recover tax from deductor on same income by treating deductor to be assessee-in-default for shortfall in its amount of tax deducted at source. In our view, when we have already come to the conclusion that provisions of Section 194-J on facts are inapplicable, then question of tax having been paid by the recipient of income, looses significance.” 4. In view of the self same question having been already considered as aforesaid wherein this court did not find any substantial question of law to emerge, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal as well and the same being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. (J.K. RANKA), J. (AJAY RASTOGI), J. S Kumawat/-

More judgments on Section 194-J

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →