ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD.,, BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the revenue and this is directed against the order of CIT (A) – Hubli dated 30.12.2013 for Assessment Year 2007 – 08.

The revenue has raised as many as 7 grounds but the only effective grievance of the revenue is regarding the deletion of the demand raised by the AO u/s 201 (1) & 201 (1A).

Learned DR of the revenue supported the order passed by the AO u/s 201 (1) & 201 91A). learned AR of the assessee submitted that the matter may be restored to AO for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 293 ITR 226 and of Hon’ble Karnataka High court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. as reported in 384 ITR 77. He submitted that the assessee will produce the evidence regarding the payment of tax by the deductees and in that situation, no demand can be raised u/s 201 (1) and Page 2 of 2 demand can be raised for interest u/s 201 (1A) if there is any delay in payment by the deductees.

We have considered the rival submissions. We feel that in the facts of the present case, the matter should go back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) and of Hon’ble Karnataka High court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (Supra) after examining these facts that the deductees has paid tax or not and whether there is any delay in such payment. We order accordingly. The assessee should produce the evidence regarding the payment of tax by the deductees and in respect of those parties where deductees has made payment of tax as per law after considering the impugned income on which no tax is deducted by the assessee, no demand should be raised u/s 201 (1) although demand u/s 201 (1A) can be raised in respect of delay in payment, if any.