above-mentioned sixappeals have been filed by assessee against thecombined order of learned CIT (Appeals) dated 18-10-2006 for financial year1999-2000 to 2004-05. As common grounds have been taken in all these sixappeals and further as they arise out of combined order of learned CIT(Appeals), for sake of convenience these appeals are being decided by acommon order. 2. ShriVed Jain FCA along with Smt. RanoJain appeared for assessee whereas Shri M.L. Meena DR represented therevenue. 3. At out set learned counsel for assesseeclarified preliminary issue relating to approval of COD. He submitted thatin view of decision in case of Andhra Pradesh Power GenerationCorporation Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] (Mad.),the clearance from committee constituted under direction of Hon ble Supreme Court is required only when dispute isin between Ministries of Government of India or Ministry and Public SectorUndertakings. According to him, assessee trust isnot public sector undertaking and, therefore, approval of COD is notrequired. learned DR could not controvert this submission of assessee. In view of above, appeals are legallymaintainable. 4. learned counsel forthe assessee proceeded to argue appeals on merit.After narrating facts relating to relevant financial years, he pointedout that order of Assessing Officer and that of learned CIT (Appeals)are not maintainable because section 194A of Income-tax Act is notapplicable to case of present assessee. Itwas pointed out by him that this plea was taken before learned CIT(Appeals) also but he has not properly adjudicated same. 5. On issue relating tostatus learned counsel made reference to following ground taken in appeal: "5(i ) On facts and circumstances of case, thelearned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, innot appreciating that and provision of tax deduction at source under section194A were not applicable to appellant and instant case." 6. This ground is identicalin all appeals. Therefore, we consider it proper to adjudicate issueinvolved in above mentioned ground, as decided during course of hearingof appeals. 7. On going through theorder passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) read with section 19A of theIncome-tax Act, dated 13-3-2006, it is found that contention of assessee was that sub-section (3) of section 194A providescircumstances under which exclusion from operation of section 194A is given.According to learned counsel, provisions of section 194A have been appliedwrongly by Assessing Officer by following order of ITAT Delhi Bench"A" in case of ONGC Ltd. v . ITO [2005] (Delhi), and held that assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under 194A inrespect of credits made to account of members of Trust who have ceased tobe employees of NTPC Ltd. and thereby assesseewas treated as assessee in default under sections201(1) and 201(1A) of Income-tax Act. 8. It was submitted by himthe ld. counsel for assessee that in aboveappeal filed before ITAT, plea of status was not raised before Tribunaland, therefore, decision of ITAT in that case is distinguishable. 9. Coming to theapplicability of section 194A, supporting ground of appeal, reproduced asabove, it was contended by him that plea of status was taken by assessee before learned CIT (Appeals) by submittingthat assessee trust has to be treated as anindividual. He submitted that trust i s not to be treated as Association Of Persons nor as body of individuals n o r juristicperson. learned counsel further submitted that although assessee placed reliance on several authorities on thisissue but learned CIT (Appeals) has not dealt with argument of assessee and has summarily rejected same by observingas under: "4.3 new ground isalso raised before me, relying on cases of M.L. Family Trust v. Stateof Gujarat for proposition that status of trustees being same asthat if beneficiaries, trustees and individuals and not AOP. I have considered thesedecisions and I find that these decisions were rendered in context ofprosecuting proceedings when artificial veil was lifted to identity theindividuals who has to be prosecuted. Apart from above, section 2(31) ofthe Income-tax Act defines "persons". In said definitionindividuals and APOs, etc., are distinctly and categorically mentioned asseparate entities. In light of above I am of opinion that abovecase laws would not apply as issue in this case tax deduction atsource." 10. For supporting hisargument that trust is to be treated as individual because trust isrepresented on behalf of employees and trustees being individual, provisioncontained under section 194A of Income-tax Act will not be attracted, thelearned counsel placed reliance on decisions in cases of ITO v. Arihant Trust [1995] (Mad.). Copies of thesedecisions have also been filed in paper book. He made reference to severalother authorities also on this point. 11. We have carefullyconsidered facts and circumstances relating to this matter and rivalsubmissions. In case of M.L. Family Trust v. State of Gujarat [1995] , Hon ble GujaratHigh Court has observed as under: "Prosecution -offence under sections 276B read with section 278B - Trustees accused -beneficiaries individual - Status of trustees being same as t h t ofbeneficiaries, trustees are individuals, and not AOP - Provisions of section194A, therefore, not applicable in case of such trustees - Prosecution undersections 276B read with rule 278B for non-compliance with section 194A isinvalid and quashed - CWT v . Trustees of HEH Nizam sFamily (Remainder Wealth) Trust 1977 CTR (SC) 306; [1977] 108 ITR 555 (SC)applied." 11.1 In case of Arihant Trust (supra), Hon ble Madras High Court has observed as under: "Prosecution -offence under section 276B - Trust failed to deduct tax at source - It wasassessed under section 161(1) i.e. in manner of beneficiaries,who are individuals - Even artificial juridical person can be treated anindividual under section 194A - When trust was treated individual whilereceiving income, there is no law to change its status for other purposes -It has to be treated as same individual under section 194A also - Individual isexempt from provisions of section 194 - Department cannot prosecute trustand its trustees for failure to deduct tax at source." 11.2 In case of Ganesh Chhababhai Vaalabhai Patel Family Trust (supra), theAllahabad Bench of ITAT while dealing with applicability of section194A has made following observations: "Liability to deductincome-tax would arise in cases where person paying income by way of interestis not individual or HUF. If he comes in category of"individual" or "HUF", there would be no liability underthe said provision. In present case trustees represent individuals andHUFs. They do not represent AOP or BOI. Consequently, they would be assessablein status of "individual" or "HUF" and such assessmentwould be in like manner and to same extent as beneficiary.Beneficiaries have been assessed in respect of income of trust in thestatus of individuals and HUFs and even if trustees were to be assessed,the assessment would be in status of individuals and HUFs whose beneficialinterest are represented by trustees. Consequently,the provisions of section 194 regarding liability to deduct income-tax onpayment of income by way of interest would not be applicable to trustees ofthe specific trust." 11.3 In case of GuruTrust (supra), Bangalore Bench of ITAT has also adopted asimilar view which is as under: "TDS obligation todeduct tax under section 194A - In case of trust it is assessee, i.e., beneficiary alone who isrequired to be considered as payer and status of assesseewill determine applicability of section 194A - Trustees are merely placedin position of physical agent carrying on functions relating toadministration of trust - However, trust is not something different fromtrustees - Trustees are to be assessed in like manner and to sameextent as beneficiaries themselves - Therefore, in instant case,trustees are also assessable in status of individual - Same status shouldagain apply for deduction of tax at source under section 194A - Provisions ofsection 194A not therefore applicable to trust - Interest under section 201(1A)as also penalty under section 221 therefore not attracted." 11.4 In case of T.S.K.Enterprises (supra) Hon ble MadrasHigh Court has also taken identical similar view. Hon bleBombay High Court in case of CIT v. MarsonsBeneficiary Trust [1991] has also taken similar view. We are not requiredto multiply authorities because status of trust has been welldefined in above-mentioned authorities against whichthe learned DR could not bring to our notice by decisions to counter theargument of learned counsel for assessee. 11.5 assesseehad taken specific plea before learned CIT (Appeals) but learned CIT(A) has wrongly distinguished decision in case ofM.L. Family Trust ( supra) and decision in case of Arihant Trust (supra). He has notassigned any cogent reasons to do so and has simply stated that these decisionsrelated to prosecution proceedings. In our considered opinion, this ground fordistinguishing authorities is not justified because in various casescategorical findings have been recorded about status of tr u s t inrelation to section 194A of Income-tax Act. We have already reproduced therelevant observations made in these judgments by Hon bleCourts and on going through same, there appears to be no scope to take adifferent view, nor any authority has been brought toour notice for taking such view. 11.6 Section 194A runs as under: "194A(1)Any person not being individual or Hindu undivided family, who isresponsible for paying to resident any income by way of interest other thanincome [by way of interest on securities], shall at time of credit of suchincome to account of payee or at time of payment thereof in cash orby issue of cheque or draft or by any other mode,whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at rates in force." 11.7 In view of above,provision under section 194A is not applicable to individual and since in viewof above authorities, status of assesseetrust is to be taken as that of individual, provisions of section 194Aare not attached in case of assessee.Consequently it cannot be held that assesseecommitted any default within ambit of that provision. Consequently, theliability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) is also not attracted against assessee. 11.8 On basis of thediscussion made above, common ground No. 5(i )in all appeals, is decided in favourof assessee. Since provisions of section 194A arenot attracted, order passed by Assessing Officer under sections 201(1)and 201(1A) read with section 194A of Income-tax Act and order of thelearned CIT (Appeals) in upholding same are liable to be quashed. We orderaccordingly. Accordingly, appeals are allowed on this ground alone. 12. Since we have allowed allthese appeals on common ground being ground No. 5(i )the other grounds taken in these appeals are not required to be adjudicated onmerits. 13. In result, all theappeals stand allowed. *** Ntpc Ltd. Employees Provident Fund Trust v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 50(2)