9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant : S. Rama Rao, AR For the Respondents : Rajat Mitra, DR ORDER Per S. S. Godara , JM These two assessee's appeals for AYs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad's order(s) dated 14-02-2019, in case Nos. 10141 10142/18-19/DCIT, TDS-Cir. 1(1)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/18-19, involving proceedings u/s. 201(1) 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee's identical sole substantive grievance raised in both the instant appeals challenges correctness of the lower authorities' action invoking Section 201(1) and 201(1A) TDS recovery mechanism involving the impugned dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rescue of issueless couples as per the learned counsel's written submissions discussing the mythological side, the first successful instance of artificial insemination of a woman through surrogacy reported only in the year 1884. After a long time span of almost a century thereafter saw the first case of a completed 'IVF' transfer. This was followed by the first legal surrogacy agreement brokered in USA which in turn was used to establish an infertility centre. The year 1978 saw the first baby born through IVF transfer. 19. We continue to notice that next decade of 1980 to 1989 witnessed the famous surrogate child's custody dispute 'Baby M case' in the year 1986 wherein the New Jersey Supreme Court (USA) reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gacy agreement in this regard. The introductory portion thereof duly contains the clause that the same is 'by and among' the genetic parents, surrogate mothers and the assessee in other words. Not only this, 'material breach' clause 17.2 therein also suggests that it is the infertility centre/physician only 'who shall reimburse intended parents for all sums expended plus interest at the maximum allowable rate'. All this sufficiently negates the assessee's stand that it is neither a party to the surrogacy agreement nor any right or liability flows thereof on its role as an infertility clinic. 23. We further notice with the Revenue's able assistance and from a perusal of the case file at pg. 35 that the NG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; more particularly from the latter's side, not only exploiting the poor surrogate mothers but also proving clear cut cheating of the female wombs. We make it clear that this payee had also failed to throw any light on payments made to surrogate mothers whose services had been utilized by the assessee/infertility centre for the purpose of surrogate pregnancy on behalf of the genetic parents. We therefore exercise our inherent jurisdiction vested u/s. 254 of the Act as well to observe these parties have done nothing else but exploited the poor and destitute surrogate mothers without even paying the adequate compensation. Rather the payee 'NGO' and its office bearer(s) have prima facie swindled the entire money. This conclusion fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We thus reverse both the lower authorities' action invoking Section 194J in facts of the instant case(s). It is therefore concluded that our instant latter adjudication has no bearing on final outcome of the impugned 40(a)(ia) disallowance as the same already stands confirmed u/s. 194C of the Act. Assessee's first appeal ITA No. 866/Hyd/2016 raising this sole issue fails therefore . We thus adopt judicial consistency and uphold the impugned TDS recovery demands in issue. No other argument has been raised before us. 5. These assessee's appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2021. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
