JUDGMENT G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. 1. Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Chennai dated 6.10.2006 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 1381 (Mds) of 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- "The Assessee is the landlord, who had rented out the building to a tenant viz. Union Motors Services Limited, who had deducted tax while paying the rent, but failed to issue TDS Certificate as well as credit the amount to Income Tax Department." 3. The Assessee, while filing a return, submitted that the tenant has not furnished TDS Certificate as per the requirement of the Income Tax Act and therefore, they are entitled for such deduction as it has already been deducted to the tune of Rs. 2,75,700/-. 4. However, the Assessing Officer has not given credit to the said amount being the tax deducted at source by Union Motors Services Limited as the appellant did not furnish the TDS Certificate for this amount. The assessee has filed an appeal against such Assessment Order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) also found that without TDS Certificate, the tax cannot be deducted and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also held that the appellant has no appellate remedy, but only an administrative remedy and dismissed the appeal, against which, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal found that the order of the Appellate Authority is sustainable, however, modified that if the assessee so desires, can approach the Assessing Officer and file all necessary evidence to show that the tax has already been deducted at source, against which, the present appeal is filed. 6. On Admission, the following substantial questions of law were raised:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in Law in holding that the Appeal against the Assessment Order dated 27.11.2003 of the Respondent under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in Law in holding that the remedy for the Appellant is not an appellate remedy but an administrative remedy especially when the Appellant has exhausted the said remedy? 3. 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in Law in holding that the remedy for the Appellant is not an appellate remedy but an administrative remedy especially when the Appellant has exhausted the said remedy? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 205 of the Income Tax Act would apply and is the Appellant liable to pay tax to the extent to which tax has been deducted? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in Law in holding that it is for the Appellant to obtain TDS Certificate and submit the same to the Assessing Officer? 7. Though the above questions of law are raised. We are inclined to take the third substantial question of law, which will answer the other questions. 8. Pending appeal, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras was impleaded as party in view of the litigation proceedings initiated against Union Motors, who was the tenant. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a bar under Section 205 of the Income tax Act, demanding any tax from the assessee, when the tax has already been deducted at source. The learned counsel relied on the following case laws:- 1. Smt. Ansuya Alva vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 278 ITR 206 2. Yashpal Sahni vs Rekha Hajarnavis, Assistant CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 539 (Bom) 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the appeal itself is not maintainable as the appellant has an administrative remedy, not the appellate remedy, as held by the authorities below. 11. The learned counsel for the Revenue also pointed out that if the tax deducted is not paid to the Government, the Assessing Officer has the authority to demand the tax and impose penalty under sub-section (2) of Section 272 of the Income Tax Act. 12. The learned counsel, who is appearing for the Company in Liquidation, would submit that the Company was put on liquidation only in the year 2004 and the Assessment Period is 2001-2002 and therefore, the Company, in liquidation, is not under obligation to discharge the liability. 13. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. 13. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. The present dispute relates to the failure of non issuance of TDS certificates by the tenant. The mandate is on the tenant to deduct tax at source and remit the amount to the Government and also issue certificate to the assessee. 15. Section 205 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:- "205. Bar against direct demand on assessee – Where tax is deductible at the source under sections 192 to 194, section 194A, section 194B, section 194BB, section 194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 195 and section 196A, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income." 16. The plain reading of the section makes it clear that whenever tax is deductible under the provisions of this Act and where the tax has already been deducted, no demand can be raised on the deductee. This implies that to the extent of TDS, demand cannot be raised on the deductee. However, for the failure on the part of the deductor, suitable provisions are available in section 201 and other sections mentioned supra. 17. This has been dealt with by the Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. Rekha Hajarnavis, Assistant CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 539 (Bom), wherein the Bombay High Court has held as follows:- "15. Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for collection and recovery of tax by two modes. They are (one) directly from the assessee and (two) indirectly by deduction of tax at source. In the present case, we are concerned with the second mode of recovery, namely, recovery of tax by deduction at source. 17. Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for collection and recovery of tax by two modes. They are (one) directly from the assessee and (two) indirectly by deduction of tax at source. In the present case, we are concerned with the second mode of recovery, namely, recovery of tax by deduction at source. 17. Section 201 of the Act, inter alia, provides that where a company bound to deduct tax at source fails to deduct tax or after having deducted fails to pay the said tax to the credit of the Central Government within the stipulated time, then the Company shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax and the said company shall be liable to pay the simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the TDS amount from the date on which such tax was deductible upto the date on which such tax is actually paid to the Central Government. Section 201(2) of the Act further provides that till the TDS amount with interest, as stated above, is paid to the Central Government, there shall be a charge upon all the assets of the company. Moreover, section 221 of the Act, inter alia, provides for the levy of penalty and section 276B of the Act, inter alia, provides that where a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and provides for levy of fine. Thus, the Act provides for complete machinery to recover the tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted it. 18. At this stage, we may also note that every person deducting tax at source is required to issue a certificate under section 203 of the Act specifying the amount of tax deducted, the rate at which the tax has been deducted and such other particulars as may be prescribed. 18. At this stage, we may also note that every person deducting tax at source is required to issue a certificate under section 203 of the Act specifying the amount of tax deducted, the rate at which the tax has been deducted and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Section 199 of the Act provides that any tax deducted at source under the provisions of Chapter XVII and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made and the credit shall be given to him for the amount so deducted on the production of the TDS certificate issued under section 203 of the Act. Section 205 of the Act provides that where tax is deductible at the source under Chapter XVII of the Act, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which the tax has been deducted. Section 205 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, read thus:- 205. Bar against direct demand on assessee – Where tax is deductible at the source under sections 192 to 194, section 194A, section 194B, section 194BB, section 194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 195 and section 196A, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income." 20. From the language of section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot be levied once again on the assessee who has suffered the deduction. Once it is established that the tax has been deducted from the salary of the employee, the bar under section 205 of the Act comes into operation and it is immaterial as to whether the tax deducted at source has been paid to the Central Government or not, because elaborate provisions are made under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax. 18. Following this judgment, a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Ansuya Alva vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) (2005) 278 ITR 206 , interpreting section 205, has held as follows:- "9. 18. Following this judgment, a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Ansuya Alva vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) (2005) 278 ITR 206 , interpreting section 205, has held as follows:- "9. I am of the view that this understanding and such interpretation of Section 205 of the Act is also in consonance with the general principles of law, particularly the principles of the Law of Principal and Agent. If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e. as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two, insofar as the deduction of tax at source representing 20 per cent of the monthly rent payable as envisaged under Section 194-I of the Act is concerned, the deduction is under the statutory obligation and on behalf of the Revenue and because of the compulsion herein. It is not as if the petitioner could prevent such deduction. When the person like a tenant acts as a representative or agent of the Revenue for such deduction and if there is any violation on his/her part, the consequence should fall only on the Revenue and that cannot be foisted on the assessee. It is no doubt true that the assessee if pays the tax in terms of the tax liability, i.e. under the assessment order and to the extent of the amount is not paid to the Government remains a liability on the assessee also and could look upto the tenant to recover the amount for reimbursement. The question in the light of the provisions is that, should the assessee be driven to that plight? I thank that the provision is to provide a protection to the assessee and to prevent the Revenue from embarking on the recovery proceedings in respect of such amount. If such being the object of the provision, it is not possible to understand the word deduct occurring in Section 205 as deducted and remitted. 10. I thank that the provision is to provide a protection to the assessee and to prevent the Revenue from embarking on the recovery proceedings in respect of such amount. If such being the object of the provision, it is not possible to understand the word deduct occurring in Section 205 as deducted and remitted. 10. Even on the general principles of law, the Law of Principal and Agent, as discussed above, for a default of the agent of the Revenue, the petitioner-assessee, who is a third party in relation to such relationship cannot be penalised. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner." 19. The facts and circumstances of the above case is similar to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the bar under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act prevents the department from demanding the tax deducted at source from the assesee who has suffered a deduction. Further more, now the liability rests with the Official Liquidator. Therefore, the Department is at liberty to proceed against the company in liquidation in the hands of the Official liquidator by filing a claim for the amount in question. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "Ä" Bench, Chennai dated 6.10.2006 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 1381 (Mds) of 2004 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.