Dear This case cover the relevent second point.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226(SC)
Relevant Section : 194-I
The assessee treated warehousing charges paid to Pradeep Oil as a contract payment and deducted tax at 2% on the same. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the warehousing charges as rent as defined in section 194-I and asked the assesee to pay the difference and interest on the amount of tax short deducted. This view was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and also the High Court, which dismissed further appeal therefrom. Thereafter, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application before the Appellate Tribunal contending that since Pradeep Oil had paid the tax on the said income, the same could not be recovered from the assessee. The Tribunal observed that there was a mistake in its earlier order and recalled it for the limited purpose of deciding the specific ground raised by the assessee. The Department did not challenge this order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that although the assessee was rightly held as an assessee-in-default, tax cannot be recovered from him since the tax had already been paid by the recipient of income, namely, Pradeep Oil. On appeal, the High Court held that since the original order had become final on account of dismissal by the High Court of the appeal filed therefrom, the Appellate Tribunal could not have reopened the matter.
The Supreme Court, on appeal, observed the Department did not challenge the order of the Tribunal recalling its earlier order. Therefore, the order had attained finality and the High Court could not interfere with the final order. Further, there was no dispute that the tax payable had been paid by the recipient of income. Therefore, in view of Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.97 and payment of interest under section 201(1A) by the assessee, the Supreme Court held that the tax could not once again be recovered from the assessee.
CAclubindia
