TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lection of tax - the matters are required to be re-considered by the Assessing Officer in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, on the merits - However, it is made clear that the assessee, in the present case, shall raise the question that whether the assessee being an association under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act is liable to collect tax at source - 341-350 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2009 - K. L. MANJ UNAT H and ARAVIND KUMAR JJ. A. Shankar for the appellants. M. V. Seshachala for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. K. L. MANJU NATH J.- The assessee is challenging the legality and Correctness of the order dated May 31, 2002, passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the validity of levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case? 8. Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the penalty under section 271C when the appellant was under the bona fide belief that it is not liable for deduction of tax at source? 9. Whether the bona tide belief of the appellant that they were not within the purview of sections 194C and 194-I of the Income-tax Act constitute reasonable cause for cancelling the penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The facts of this case are as hereunder : 3. The appellant is running an educational institution and the appellant-society is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Soc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to be dismissed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said orders, the present appeals are preferred by the assessee. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 has ruled that if the payee has paid the tax, even though the assessee failed to deduct tax, the tax cannot be recovered once again from the assessee as it amounts to double collection of tax. Relying upon the said judgment, he submits that since this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the officer, he requests the court to remand the matter to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
