Revenue has presented following appeals raising certain questions of law.

Sl. Nos.	ITA No.	ITA No. Before Tribunal	Assessment years
1.	437/2012	910/Bang/2012	2009-10
2.	439/2012	909/Bang/2012	2008-09
3.	440/2012	908/Bang/2012	2007-08
4.	442/2012	906/Bang/2011	2009-10
5.	444/2012	905/Bang/2011	2008-09
6.	445/2012	904/Bang/2011	2007-08
7.	446/2012	903/Bang/2011	2010-11
8.	449/2012	902/Bang/2011	2009-10
9.	450/2012	901/Bang/2011	2008-09
10.	451/2012	900/Bang/2011	2007-08
11.	452/2012	899/Bang/2011	2010-11
12.	453/2012	898/Bang/2011	2009-10
13.	455/2012	897/Bang/2011	2008-09
14.	456/2012	896/Bang/2011	2007-08
15.	458/2012	913/Bang/2012	2009-10
16.	460/2012	912/Bang/2012	2008-09
17.	465/2012	911/Bang/2012	2007-08

2. All the above appeals were admitted to consider the following common substantial question of law:

“Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case?”

3. Heard Shri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the appellants/Income Tax Department and Shri Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue made following submissions with regard to factual matrices of appeals.

(i) Assessee, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) is a State owned Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of buying and selling electricity. Assessee purchases electricity from State owned generators like Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL), National Thermal Corporation (NTC) and the like ones as also from private generators like Jindal Energy Limited. Power is transmitted from the generation point to the consumers through the transmission network of the Karnataka Power Transport Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in terms of an agreement dated 08.05.2012 which has a term of 25 years there from.

(ii) During the survey conducted by the Revenue in the premises of assessee under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), it was noticed that the assessee had made payments towards transmission charges to KPTCL; Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) and ‘SLDC charges’ to State Load Dispatching Centre (SLDC) without deducting tax deductible at source under Section 194J of the Act. After issuing summons and following all procedure, the assessing authority vide separate orders dated 31.03.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 held that the assessee was in default under Section 201(1) of the Act and levied interest of Rs.65,18,10,369/- under Section 201(1A) both in respect of payments made towards transmission charges and ‘SLDC charges’. Orders passed by the Assessing Authority were challenged before the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals).

(iii) During the hearing, the assessee had brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the payee namely the KPTCL had paid the taxes due on its income. Accordingly, the assessee urged that no demand be raised against the assessee, as the taxes were already paid by the payee KPTCL. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC) the Commissioner held that no demand could be visualized under Section 201(1) of the Act in cases where assessee had successfully demonstrated that the taxes were already paid by the payee. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed in part and the ITO (PDS) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to furnish proof of payment of taxes by the payees and thereafter work out interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act from the date of remittance of TDS till the date of filing of the return by the