2007 (8) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rinks.  The appellant-assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Pradeep Oil Corporation for use of their premises for receipt, storage and dispatch of goods belonging to the appellant-company.  There is no dispute that the appellant had paid the warehousing charges to M/s. Pradeep Oil Corporation on which tax was deducted under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') @ 2%.  The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.3.2001 held the appellant  to be 'assessee in default' for failure to deduct tax at source in respect of warehousing charges paid to M/s. Pradeep Oil Corporation. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee that the payments made by the appellant-company were in the nature....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... did not raise any dispute about it being the 'assessee in default' and also raised no objection as regards the levy of interest under Section 201 (1A) of the Act.  The grievance of the appellant was that its alternative contention that the warehouser has been assessed on its income and the tax due has been recovered from it by the department and therefore, no further tax could have been collected from the appellant has not been considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.7.2002.  The contention was that since the tax to be recovered by the department on the income has already been paid by the assessee, no further tax should be recovered from the appellant on the same income. The Tribunal vide its order dated 13.9.2004 allowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eceived from the appellant and had received refund from the tax department.  The Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant (deductor-assessee) since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of income. 8. The High Court interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the order dated 12.7.2002 of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has attained its finality since the appeal filed against the same by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 21.5.2004; the point based on Ground No. 7 was not taken up in the appeal preferred by the appellant in the High Court.  The High Court further held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated....