Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

293 ITR 226Supreme Court of India2007#108 most cited

What is Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

576

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 293 ITR 226 · Section 201(1) assessee in default · Section 201(1A) interest · tax paid by deductee · deductor not in default · TDS non-deduction liability · Section 194C · CBDT Circular S/2013

Sections most often in play

Section 201(1A)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 139Section 250

Issues it is cited on

interest under section 201(1a)section 271csection 201(1)assessee in defaultsection 201(1a)section 201section 194csection 20section 194section 19section 40(a)(ia)section 40(a)

Judgments citing Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Central Circle-74(1), New Delhi vs. Fortis Hospital Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 241/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Fortis Hospital Ltd. Central Circle- Tower-A, Unitech Business 74(1), New Delhi. Park, Block-F South City-1, Section-41, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 001 Pan Aabcf3718N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay
Section 133ASection 192Section 192BSection 194JSection 201(1)

…sult of the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.06.2003 the liability to deduct tax gets abated the moment there is a direct payment. Section 201 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) took the view that no demand u/s 201 could be enforced once the deductor had satisfied the AO that the deductee had paid the taxes. The other judgements are Children's Education Society vs DCIT (TDS) (2009) 319 ITR 409 (Kar), TRO vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR (At) 244 (Bang:), Nai Rajdhani Path Pramandal vs CIT (2016) 384 ITR 328 (Pat…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2097/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, OSD(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai(Present in Charge JCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2096/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2095/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2094/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2093/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2092/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2091/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

…fore, the interest liability under section 201 (1A) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court; therefore, the above decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 19. Hon Supreme court in Hindustan Coca cola Limited in [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that :- “10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfie…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 573/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

…ed on the order of the ITAT, Jaipur, 'B' Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2 Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2012) 19 Taxmann. Com 221. and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco- Cola(P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 293 ITR 226. In view of above legal position and the facts of the case, ld. CIT (A)- NFAC is not justified in not allowing relief to the assessee against order passed under section 201/201(1A).” 8 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, p…

Rajdhani Mineral Jaipur Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS-I, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 333/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Jain (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133ASection 206CSection 250

…SHARI BALAJI INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD 1746904.00 23 VIJAY TRADING CORPORATION 572208.00 24 VINAYAK INTERNATIONAL 24042435.00 6 Rajdhani Minerals Jaipur vs. ITO "The Hon'ble supreme court in its decision in the case of Hindustan coca cola Beverage P. Itd. (293 ITR 226) has held that where tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes due have been paid by the deductee the same should not be recovered from the deductor. Keeping in view of the aforesaid decision of hon'ble supreme court where the assessee has submitted the declaration /copy of income tax filed by purchaser regarding the rece…

Time Ads & Publicity, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…om, while the same stands in fact paid by the payee on his own, would be harsh in the extreme and, in fact, may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is for this reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) restricted the consequence of non-deduction of tax at source to interest for the delayed deposit of tax to the credit of the Central Government where the tax on the relevant sum had been deposited by the payee. The Parliament, recognizing this hardship, has addressed the issue and, further, within the frame-work of law. ITA Nos.226/C/2012 &…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Time Ads & Publicity, Cochin

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 226/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…om, while the same stands in fact paid by the payee on his own, would be harsh in the extreme and, in fact, may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is for this reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) restricted the consequence of non-deduction of tax at source to interest for the delayed deposit of tax to the credit of the Central Government where the tax on the relevant sum had been deposited by the payee. The Parliament, recognizing this hardship, has addressed the issue and, further, within the frame-work of law. ITA Nos.226/C/2012 &…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 206CSection 5

…e assessee in their trading or profit & loss account as purchase and paid tax. Then no demand can be raised in the case of the assessee u/s 206C(6)and 206C(7). As per the settled legal position of law in the case Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 293 ITR 226 followed in Children’s Education Society v/s DCIT & Anr 34 DTR 145(Ker)- and other cases. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to above further as stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of ot…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 206CSection 5

…e assessee in their trading or profit & loss account as purchase and paid tax. Then no demand can be raised in the case of the assessee u/s 206C(6)and 206C(7). As per the settled legal position of law in the case Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 293 ITR 226 followed in Children’s Education Society v/s DCIT & Anr 34 DTR 145(Ker)- and other cases. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to above further as stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of ot…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 206CSection 5

…e assessee in their trading or profit & loss account as purchase and paid tax. Then no demand can be raised in the case of the assessee u/s 206C(6)and 206C(7). As per the settled legal position of law in the case Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 293 ITR 226 followed in Children’s Education Society v/s DCIT & Anr 34 DTR 145(Ker)- and other cases. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to above further as stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of ot…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…e entire provisioned amount for each year under consideration u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 15. We also draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that in the event the payee has paid taxes, the deductor cannot be held liable for not deducting the TDS. As the Ld.AO has not verified this aspect and considering the fact that assessee has paid taxes by suo moto disallowance of the entire provisioned amount, it is difficult to agree with the orders passed by the authorities below.…

District Mining Officer, Bemetara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 9/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA Nos. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 8/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 9/RPR/2023 Officer, Bemtara Commissioner of 2014-15 10/RPR/2023 Mining Office, Income Tax (TDS) 2015-16 1-7. 11/RPR/2023 Collectorate Campus Raipur (C.G) 2016-17 12/RPR/2023 Bemtara (C.G.)- 2017-18 13/RPR/2023 491335 2018-19 14/RPR/2023 PAN: JBPO00856C 2019-20 120/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 121/RPR/2023 Officer…

District Mining Officer, Bemetara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 8/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA Nos. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 8/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 9/RPR/2023 Officer, Bemtara Commissioner of 2014-15 10/RPR/2023 Mining Office, Income Tax (TDS) 2015-16 1-7. 11/RPR/2023 Collectorate Campus Raipur (C.G) 2016-17 12/RPR/2023 Bemtara (C.G.)- 2017-18 13/RPR/2023 491335 2018-19 14/RPR/2023 PAN: JBPO00856C 2019-20 120/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 121/RPR/2023 Officer…

Collector Mining, Kanker vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 69/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA Nos. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 8/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 9/RPR/2023 Officer, Bemtara Commissioner of 2014-15 10/RPR/2023 Mining Office, Income Tax (TDS) 2015-16 1-7. 11/RPR/2023 Collectorate Campus Raipur (C.G) 2016-17 12/RPR/2023 Bemtara (C.G.)- 2017-18 13/RPR/2023 491335 2018-19 14/RPR/2023 PAN: JBPO00856C 2019-20 120/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 121/RPR/2023 Officer…

Collector Mining, Kanker vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 68/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA Nos. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 8/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 9/RPR/2023 Officer, Bemtara Commissioner of 2014-15 10/RPR/2023 Mining Office, Income Tax (TDS) 2015-16 1-7. 11/RPR/2023 Collectorate Campus Raipur (C.G) 2016-17 12/RPR/2023 Bemtara (C.G.)- 2017-18 13/RPR/2023 491335 2018-19 14/RPR/2023 PAN: JBPO00856C 2019-20 120/RPR/2023 District Mining The Deputy 2013-14 121/RPR/2023 Officer…