Tribunal rules Medical Officers, not assessee, responsible for TDS. Revenue appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision that the Medical Officers of Primary Health Centres, not the assessee, were responsible for deducting TDS on payments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to reduce demands against the appellant and consider raising demands on the Medical Officers instead. The Cross Objections by the assessee were also dismissed as they were covered by the Tribunal's decision in the appeals. Both the revenue's appeals and the assessee's Cross Objections were dismissed on December 22, 2017.

---

---

Issues:
- Competent authority to deduct TDS on payments made to various parties

Analysis:
The case involved appeals by the revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Assessing Officer raised a demand on the assessee for failing to deduct tax under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the District Medical & Health Officer was not the Drawing & Disbursing Officer for the payments made, and the Medical Officers of Primary Health Centres were responsible for deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application, stating no apparent mistake. The ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation given by the assessee and details submitted, concluding that the Medical Officers, not the assessee, were liable for TDS deduction. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the demands raised against the appellant and consider raising demands on the Medical Officers instead.

The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, with the Departmental Representative supporting the Assessing Officer's order. The counsel for the assessee reiterated the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the competent authority for TDS deduction was the Medical Officers of Primary Health Centres, not the assessee. The Tribunal examined the submissions and orders, focusing on the competent authority to deduct TDS. It upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee was a government organization appointing contract employees, and the Medical Officers were responsible for payments, not the assessee. The Tribunal found no fault in the ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Regarding the Cross Objections by the assessee, they were supportive of the ld. CIT(A)'s orders. As the Tribunal's decision in the appeals covered the issues raised in the Cross Objections, no separate adjudication was necessary, leading to the dismissal of the Cross Objections. Consequently, the appeals by the revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee were both dismissed in the judgment pronounced on December 22, 2017.

---