1. These six appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) are directed against the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench allowing the appeals (ITA Nos. 3786 to 3791/Del/2005) filed by the respondent, Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India). While the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 also allowed another appeal of the respondent being TDS No.166/Del/2003 (for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 2001-02), no appeal appears to have been filed in respect of the said matter.

2. At the outset we notice that in the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the respondent is a Government body which controls and manages various Doordarshan Channels. The appellant is, therefore, required to obtain permission from the Committee on Disputes (COD) to litigate, in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collection of Central Excise,(1994) 116 CTR (SC) 643. The memorandum of appeal does not state whether such permission has been applied for and obtained. Mr. Jolly, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that he will have to seek instructions in this regard. However, since we are not inclined to entertain these appeals, we do not think it necessary to grant an adjournment for this purpose.

3. The respondent assessee was making certain payments to outside producers for programmes under commissioned category for which the assessee had been deducting tax at source under Section 194C, by treating them as contract payments. The stand of the Revenue was that television programme producers should be treated as professional/technical persons and that payments made to them should be subjected to deduction of tax at source under Section 194J of the. The rate of deduction of tax at source under Section 194C is 2 per cent under, whereas under Section 194J it is 5 per cent. An order was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) on 29.11.2002 under Sections 201/201(1A) of theholding that the assessee is liable to be treated as an assessee in default and that the short deduction including interest for the relevant financial years worked out to Rs.6.40 crores. The assessees appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeals preferred thereafter by the assessee were allowed by theAT by the impugned order.

4. Section 194C(1) requires a person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and any corporation established by or under a Central Act (which would include the assessee herein) to deduct tax at source in the equivalent of one per cent of such payment in case of advertising and two per cent in all other cases.

5. By the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from 1.7.1995, Explanation III was inserted in Section 194C which reads as under:

Explanation III.For the purposes of this section, the expression work shall also include

(a) advertising;

(b) broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting;

(c) carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways;

(d) catering.

Therefore, in terms of Clause (b) of Explanation III to Section 194C payment made towards a contract concerning broadcasting and telecasting include production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting would be covered by Section 194C.

6. Even while Finance Act, 1995 introduced the aforesaid Explanation III to Section 194C, it simultaneously inserted Section 194(J) in the which provided for deduction of tax at source at the time of payment of a fee for professional or technical service. The operative portion of Section 194J relevant for the present purpose reads as under:

Fees for professional or technical services.

194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of

(a) fees for professional services, or

(b) fees for technical services, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to five per cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein.

The explanation to Section 194J, relevant for the present purpose, reads as under:

Explanation.For the purposes of this section,

(a) professional services means services rendered by a person in the course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or advertising or such other profession as is notified by the Board for the purposes of Section 44AA or of this section.

7. The question before theAT, therefore, was whether on the facts of the present case, the Section 194C or 194J would be attracted. The ITAT has, and in our view correctly, held that once there is a specific provision introduced by way of an Explanation to Section 194(C), to bring within its ambit the contractual work concerning broadcasting and telecasting, the Revenue cannot resort to Section 194J which is in more general terms.

8. Mr. R.D. Jolly, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the making of the programmes for television involves the utilisation of professional services and that there are several technical aspects of producing such programmes which will attract the explanation (a) to Section 194J. He, therefore, submits that the view expressed by the ACIT and CIT(A) should be accepted and that of theAT, which holds to the contrary rejected.

9. We are unable to agree with this submission. We observe that Explanation III, which was introduced simultaneously with Section 194J, is very specific in its application to not only broadcasting and telecasting but also include production of programmes for such broadcasting and telecasting. If, on the same date, two provisions are introduced in the, one specific to the activity sought to be taxed and the other in more general terms, resort must be had to the specific provision which manifests the intention of the Legislature. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the Revenue that programmes produced for television, including commissioned programmes, will fall outside the realm of Section 194C Explanation III of the. We find no infirmity in the view taken by theAT which we hereby affirm.

10. In this view of the matter we hold that these appeals do not involve any substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.