ORDER

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1. These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in A.Y. 2013-14 are taken as the lead case.

2. The assessee in this appeal has raised following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO that:

(a) The payments to Tetra Pack were subject to deduction of tax at source u/s. 194J and not u/s. 194C.

(b) The payments to various parties for using their cold storage facilities were subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 194I and not u/s 194C.

1.1 Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held in respect of above payments that the appellant has not failed to deduct any part of tax in accordance with the provisions of chapter XVII-B of the Act.

1.2 Consequently, it is humbly prayed that the appellant should not be held as an assessee in default within the meaning of section 201 of the Act and the demand raised of Rs. 25,34,834/- and Rs. 21,87,949/-u/s 201(1) and 201(1a) be deleted in its entirety.

2. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove and/or such other reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and as may meet the ends of justice should be granted.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or rescind any grounds of appeal before / during the course of the hearing.

4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing dairy products such as cheese, butter and beverages, which require specialized processing and temperature-controlled storage facilities. A survey under section 133B of the Act was conducted, pursuant to which it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deducted tax at source under section 194C on certain payments where as the tax was liable to be deducted under section 194J and section 194I respectively.

5. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made payments of ₹60,69,736/- to M/s. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. towards services relating to plant management, maintenance, installation and long-term solutions, on which tax was deducted at 2% under section 194C. The Assessing Officer, after examining the agreements, held that such services involved technical expertise, human intervention, training and software-based support and therefore constituted “fees for technical services” within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii), attracting deduction of tax under section 194J. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had made payments of ₹2,33,77,273/- towards cold storage facilities and held the same to be in the nature of rent for use of space, liable for deduction of tax under section 194I. Accordingly, the assessee was treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and interest was charged under section 201(1A).

6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after detailed examination of the agreements, recorded that the services rendered by Tetra Pak included technical supervision, remote diagnostics, performance monitoring, software support and structured training of personnel, thereby involving significant human intervention. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Siemens Ltd. vs. CIT (152 TTJ 689) and distinguishing CBDT Circular No. 715, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the payments were in the nature of technical services exigible to tax deduction under section 194J. With regard to cold storage payments, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had effectively used storage space and therefore the payments were in the nature of rent covered under section 194I.

7. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee had