vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 739, 744 to 746/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 The ITO (TDS), cuke Shri Baba Mohan Ramji Kalikholi Alwar. Vs. Walamilkpur Gurjar

22 Moti Gungri, Alwar.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJTS1719H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 02/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 02/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per Bench:

The above captioned four appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as the appeals involve common issues, and Ld. DR for the department and Ld. AR for the appellant have argued the appeals simultaneously.

2. By way of the four appeals, the assessee has challenged four separate orders passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby the appeals filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 29.02.2024, passed u/s 201(1)201(1A) of the Act, relating to the assessment year 2017-18; assessment order dated 22.03.2023, relating to assessment year 2016-17, passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act; assessment order dated 06.06.2024, relating to the assessment year 2018-19, passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and assessment order dated 06.06.2024, relating to the assessment year 2019-20, passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, came to be allowed and the assessment orders were set aside.

3. Arguments heard. File perused.

4. Ld. DR for the department-appellant has submitted that he stands by the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, whereby he correctly passed assessment orders, the assessee having failed to deduct TDS u/s 194C on the payments made by the assessee to its trustees/members as per bank account statements of the assessee, for the above said assessment years.

The contention raised by Learned DR for the department-appellant is that the Assessing Officer rightly held the assessee liable for the defaults made, as regards provisions of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, and correctly made additions of the specified amount, in addition to the amount of interest which became due thereon.

5. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Learned CIT(A), for the reasons recorded in the impugned orders, was justified in setting aside the assessment orders, passed by the Assessing Officer, having regard to the order dated 25.08.2005, passed by Learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar on a petition u/s 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, filed by Shri Khacheeru Alias Phool Singh and others vs. Another. In this regard, Ld. AR has submitted written submissions which read as under:-

“1. It is submitted that as per the trust deed the trustees have a right to receive 75% of the total collection from "Dan Patra" kept in temple. The trust deed was approved by the District & Session Judge, Alwar as per its order dt. 25.08.2005 (PB 3-21). Thus 75% of the donation collected in the donation box do not accrue or arises to the assessee trust but it is the income belonging exclusively to the family members of 8 trustees which is diverted at source itself due to obligation cast upon it by the District & Session Court. There is difference between an amount which a person is obliged to apply out of his income and an amount which by nature of the obligation cannot be said to be part of income of assessee. In latter situation. obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be treated as income of assessee as such income never reaches the assessee who might have to collect the income for and behalf of the person to whom it is payable. It is a diversion of income by over-riding title on which there is no obligation on the assessee