9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/D/2010 - - - Dated:- 30-12-2011 - U.B.S. Bedi, A.N. Pahuja, JJ. V.K. Goel, AR, for the Appellant Rohit Garg, DR, for the Respondent ORDER A.N. Pahuja: These appeals filed on 30.07.2010 by the Revenue against two separate orders dated 03.05.2010 of the learned CIT(A)-Meerut, raise the following similar grounds:- 1.1 "The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Meerut u/s 201(1) read with section 194J of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 18.09.2009 raising demand of Rs.31,21,520/- for the AY 2007-08 and Rs.41,87,921/- for the AY 2008-09 erroneous. 1.2 While holding the aforesaid order u/s 201(1) read with 194J erroneous, learned CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the facts and circumstances as under: i) The payment made by the university to the coordinator colleges cannot be equated with the third party administrator, and therefore, CBDT circular No.8 dated 24.11.2009 and the judgment in the case of Medi Asstt. TPA vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court) cannot be applied, while deciding the case in favour of the assessee. ii) The work of conducting the evaluation of copy b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly, the AO raised demand for TDS of Rs.22,13,520 besides interest u/s 201(1A) to the extent of Rs. 9,97,658/-,totalling to Rs.31,21,520 for the FY 2006-07 relevant to the AY 2007-08 and Rs. 32,97,596/- on account of tax deductible at source and Rs. 89,325/- on account of interest totalling to Rs.41,87,921/-for the FY 2007-08 relevant to the AY 2008-09. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) concluded in the AY 2007-08 as under:- "6.3.3 On the basis of the submissions of the AR, relevant points emerge as under:- i) To conduct exams, the university has definite procedure and forms a committee of all the Principals of various centers and fixes the duty to conduct exams and prepare results. ii) All the Principals of the colleges are duty bound to conduct exams and prepare results as per directions and norms fixed by the university. For this purpose principal is termed as Coordinator. The coordinators are required to take help of professors, clerical staff and class IV staff for which remuneration is fixed as per norms from time to time. iii) The university has advanced the amount of Rs.1,95,39,827/- for the FY 2006-07 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leges cannot be considered as a contract between the university and the coordinator colleges. The AR's submissions clarify the legal as well as factual position of the case for the following reasons: i) There was in fact no contract between the university and the coordinator colleges. ii) The coordinator colleges were under an obligation under the guidelines issued by the university for conducting the exams. Therefore, they can be referred to as TPA (Third party administrator) in the light of recent CBDT Circular No.8 dated 24 November, 2009 and the judgment in the case of Medi Assist TPA vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court). iii) The advance payments/replenishments to the coordinator colleges (TPAs) by the Meerut University cannot be considered in any case as remuneration/consideration for the obligation taken by the coordinator colleges (TPAs) for conducting the exams. iv) The amount of advance payments/replenishment of Rs.1,95,39,827/- made to the coordinators (TPAs) was only in fact a reimbursement of the expenses for making payments of remuneration and expenses of the evaluation staff of the coordinator colleges for conducting of exams. v) Question of deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in response to this notice also. In response to another notice dated 3.9.2009, the University sent the relevant details through dak. Since the University did not submit any reply nor the reasons as to why tax was not deducted at source from the aforesaid payments, the AO treated the amount paid by the aforesaid University to the coordinators i.e. Principal of the aforesaid colleges, as fees for technical services and accordingly, concluded that tax was required to be deducted at source in terms of provisions of sec. 194J of the Act. On appeal, the learned AR on behalf of the assessee relied upon CBDT Circular no.8 dated 24.11.2009 and decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Medi Assist TPA vs. DCIT in Writ Petition no.11376 of 2009 dated 13th August, 2009 rendered in the context of TPA responsible for making payments to hospitals in terms of service agreement entered into by TPA with the insurance companies. The ld. CIT(A) while referring to submissions on behalf of the assessee concluded that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201 read section 194J of the Act erroneous. Inter alia, the learned CIT(A) observed that remuneration fixed as per letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
