Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 990 - HC - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - validity of the orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - territorial jurisdiction of AO - Regional Rural Bank having more than 451 branches spread over 9 districts of Karnataka - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that on this issue of restricting the order u/s 201(1) to only 118 branches (out of 451 branches) was in consonance with the directions issued by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the order passed relating to same assessee whereunder the Tribunal had categorically held or opined that AO, TDS ward-1, Hubballi would not have jurisdiction other than Head office and branches office if any situated at Hubballi and as such to the extent of orders of AO determining TDS by treating bank as assessee in default in respect of branches other than 118 branches were held to be not in consonance with Section 194A of the Act. This finding of the Tribunal having not been challenged by the Revenue which related to same assessee and as such it cannot be re-agitated. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals insofar as ground No.1 is concerned. Impact of acceptance of decision of Tribunal on similar fact by Revenue - HELD THAT:- Reasoning adopted for rejecting ground No.2 is on account of judgment of Delhi High Court of MEGA CORPORATION LTD. [2017 (2) TMI 1253 - DELHI HIGH COURT] having not been either cited or urged before the AO or CIT(A). In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the second ground also. Though Mr. Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that issue relating to restricting to 118 branches instead of 451 branches was still at large before the Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be considered for purpose of rejection, inasmuch as when Revenue was conscious of finding of fact having been recorded had not been challenged and same had reached finality, it would not be apt and appropriate for the Revenue to re-agitate same issue. As such, we find there is no Substantial Question of Law involved in these appeals to be framed, adjudicated and answered by us.
|