@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.@mdashIn compliance with the directions of this Court in TCP No. 85 of 1997, dt. 14th July, 1997, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law for our opinion :
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the interest levied by the AO u/s 201(1A), r/w Section 194A of the IT Act ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the status of the assessee is not that of an AOP and that there was no failure on the part of the assessee u/s 194A, even though the assessment has been made in the status of AOP ?"
2. The assessment year involved is 1984-85. Though there are two questions, the main issue that arises is whether the provisions of Section 194A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act''), would apply in the case of the assessee. Section 194A deals with the deduction of tax source in the case of payment of interest other than the "interest on securities" by any person other than an individual or an HUF, who is responsible for paying the same to a resident. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee was assessed in the status of ''AOP'' and, therefore, the provisions of Section 194A are attracted and since the assessee failed to deduct tax at source, it is liable to pay the penalty as provided u/s 201(1A) of the Act.
3. The case of the assessee is that the assessee is an ''individual'' and the assessment made on the assessee in the status of ''AOP'' is not correct. The Tribunal upheld the submission urged on behalf of the assessee and held that the correct status of assessee would be an ''individual'' and therefore, Section 194A of the Act does not get attracted. In arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal followed its own order rendered in the assessee''s own case for the earlier asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1983-84 in ITA Nos. 2360 and 2361/Mds/1986, dt, 4th Oct., 1990. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, fairly brought to the attention of this Court that the subsequent orders of the Tribunal rendered in the assessee''s own case for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 came up for consideration before this Court in TC Nos. 288 to 290 of 1998 and this Court held that the assessee was not assessable in the status of ''AOP'', but should be assessed in the status of ''individual''. In view of the decision of this Court rendered in the assessee''s own case in TC Nos. 288 to 290 of 1998, dt. 24th Jan., 2000, the correct status of the assessee should be taken as an ''individual'' and consequently, the provisions of Section 194A are not attracted to the case of the assessee and the assessee is not obliged to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by it other than the interest on securities to the payees. We, therefore, hold that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source is legally sustainable and is correct in law. Accordingly, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
4. As far as the second question is concerned, the second question is not properly framed and moreover the said question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, that question is not required to be answered and is not answered also. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
