These appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A), dt. 5th April, 2004, for asst. yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03. proceedings are initiated by order of AO passed under s. 201(1) of IT Act, 1961. assessee has raised various grounds in both appeals but only issue involved is regarding deduction of TDS under s. 194J on payment of port charges, access charges and interconnect charges to BSNL. assessee-company is engaged in business of providing infrastructure facilities as telecommunication service provider in Punjab Circle including Chandigarh. assessee-company had set up independent network parallel to network of DOT (now BSNL) for providing basic telephone service in State of Punjab. Whenever subscriber of assessee-company calls subscriber of BSNL and likewise whenever subscriber of BSNL network calls subscriber of assessee-network, then calls are routed through each others network. assessee-company had entered interconnect agreement with BSNL which lays down various parameters of such interconnectivity. Whenever subscriber of assessee- company dials number of subscriber of BSNL network, then assessee- company uses BSNL network and vice versa. Further, all traffic which is meant for delivery outside State, assessee has to pass national/international long distance operator and amount of share of calls made outside State is given to national/international service provider. assessee has paid charges to BSNL network for using services of its network. AO held that payment made by assessee to BSNL is fee for technical services and as such assessee was required to deduct TDS under s. 194J. Learned CIT(A) in its order has held as under: "It is seen that BSNL provides host of technical and managerial services for fee or charge which may either be fixed or linked to usage of its network in terms of time and pulse rate. As has been observed by AO, it is immaterial for purpose of s. 194J as to what nomenclature is used by assessee-company or exact legal and technical terminology used in legal documents as long as assessee avails of these technical and managerial services. After thorough analysis of facts, one cannot escape fact that amounts have been paid to BSNL against technical services rendered by them and so appellant was duty-bound to deduct tax at source. In my view, tax is to be deducted at source from gross amount paid to BSNL because amount was paid for availing of technical services. It is, therefore, held that AO has rightly treated appellant to be in default as per provisions of Act and accordingly, action of AO in this regard is confirmed." Aggrieved by said order of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. learned counsel for assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, stated that assessee has paid interconnect charges to BSNL which are charges paid for using network of BSNL. According to him, no technical services are provided or no knowledge is imparted by BSNL and charges paid are only to use network of BSNL. He referred interconnect detailed bill, which is placed at pp. 65 to 69 of paper book, to explain that call charges received from subscriber are shared with BSNL wherever call is routed through its network. He further stated that assessee-company and BSNL have joined to provide service to subscriber and no technical service is provided by BSNL to assessee. He relied on decision of Madras High Court in case of Skycell Communications Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2001) 170 CTR (Mad) 238: (2001) 251 ITR 53 (Mad). Learned counsel, in alternate stated that primary liability of paying tax on said income is of recipient of income and since said recipient has already paid taxes on this income, no tax can be recovered from payer and assessee-company cannot be held as assessee-in-default with regard to tax on same income on which tax has already been paid by recipient. For this proposition, he relied on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2001) 171 CTR (Guj) 288 and decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs. ITO (2000) 68 TTJ (Mumbai) 220: (2000) 74 ITD 369 (Mumbai). learned Departmental Representative, Shri R.K. Goyal, on other hand, stated that it is clear from agreement between assessee and BSNL that various highly technical and sophisticated equipments are being used by BSNL which have also been used by assessee and obligation is on part of BSNL to keep its infrastructure in operating condition. As such, payment made by assessee is for technical services being provided b y BSNL. He also stated that case of Skycell Communications (supra) is distinguishable as in said case dispute was with regard to payment received by cellular mobile telephone operator from its subscriber, whereas in instant case, assessee-company as well as BSNL are providing service to their subscribers. We have heard both parties and have gone through orders of lower authorities and decisions referred by parties. We are of opinion that interconnect charges paid by assessee to BSNL cannot be treated as technical services as provided under s. 194J. assessee-company is paying interconnect charges for using network of BSNL. No doubt that highly technical and sophisticated equipments and infrastructure is used by telephone operators but that itself does not mean that charges paid for routing telephone calls through said network means that technical service is being provided. Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Skycell Communications (supra) has held as under: "In modern day world, almost every facet of one s life is linked to science and technology inasmuch as numerous things used or relied upon in everyday life is result of scientific and technological development. Every instrument or gadget that is used to make life easier is result of scientific invention or development and involves use of technology. On that score, every provider of every instrument or facility used by person cannot be regarded as providing technical service." In our considered view, situation in case of assessee is not different from situation before Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Skycell Communications (supra). In case before Hon ble Madras High Court, question was whether firms and companies subscribing to cellular network are required to make TDS under s. 194J or not and whether service provided by cellular mobile telephone companies to its subscriber was technical services or not, and Hon ble Madras High Court held that it cannot be treated as fee for technical services. In case before us, assessee is providing service to its subscribers and certain calls are routed by making use of network of BSNL and for that purpose, call charges received by assessee from its subscribers are shared with BSNL. In our view, said service cannot be treated as technical service and provisions of s. 194J are not applicable. orders of lower authorities are vacated. Since, we have held that provisions of s. 194J are not applicable, we do not see any reason to deal with alternative plea of assessee. In result, both appeals of assessee are allowed. *** HFCL INFOTEL LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER