These are appeals filed by assessee against order of learned CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi dt. 19th Dec., 2002 for financial years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, in matter of order passed under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) of IT Act. Following common grounds of appeal have been raised by assessee in all years under consideration: "(1) For that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming order passed by AO raising demand under s. 201(1) of IT Act, 1961 (in short Act ) and erred in confirming levy of interest charged by AO under s. 201(1A) of Act. (2) For that learned CIT(A) passed order by ignoring relevant material and evidences available on record and by relying on erroneous facts and irrelevant and extraneous consideration. (3) For finding of learned CIT(A) that Khaitan Services Ltd. carried out any work on behalf of appellant which attracted provisions of s. 194C of Act is without any basis and/or material and is based on surmises and conjectures. (4) For that admittedly no work was carried out by Khaitan Services Ltd. on behalf of appellant and no payment was made by appellant to Khaitan Services Ltd. for carrying out any work for them which would attract provisions of s. 194C of Act and as such learned CIT(A) should have held that demand made under s. 201(1) and levy of interest under s. 201(1A) of Act was not justified. (5) For that order passed by learned CIT(A) is otherwise erroneous on facts as well as in law and is liable to be cancelled." Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee is partnership firm carrying on professions of advocates, notary and provide allied incidental and other professional and advisory services to its clients. While examining Form No. 26-C being annual return of TDS filed under provisions of s. 206 of IT Act, 1961, AO found that assessee has paid certain amounts to M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. towards services availed from them on which no tax was deducted under s. 194C. A O asked reasons for not deducting tax thereon. It was explained that M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. (in short KSL ) had not been carrying out any work, nor supplying any labour for carrying out any work and services so provided by them were not also covered by Expln. III to s. 194C(2) of IT Act, 1961, but KSL was only extending certain services and facilities in nature of bureau and office services like office space, computers, fax, vehicles etc. which did not involve carrying out of any work by them. However, AO did not agree with arguments given by assessee, after referring to decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 111 CTR (SC) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC), he held that term "any work" in provisions of s. 194C meant any and not only work contract. Accordingly, he treated these service as falling within purview of work contract liable to deduction of tax at source under s. 194C. AO accordingly determined short deduction of tax and charged interest thereon. By impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed action of AO by observing that there is no obligation imposed by provisions of s. 194C that before applying this section, supply of labour must be important input of contract. As per CIT(A), word "carrying out any work" would definitely include type of work being carried out by M/s Khaitan Services, which comprises of providing of office space, making available several fixed assets, machinery and equipment like furniture and fixtures, air-conditioners computers, vehicle, etc. for use of advocates and for other purposes. He further observed that these works indicate that some works are required to be carried out by some persons. Aggrieved by above order of CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. It was contended by learned Authorised Representative, Shri Ajay Vohra, that services rendered by M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. did not involve any work or supply of any labour, nor were said services covered by specific services referred to in s. 194C of Act. He further drawn our attention to fact that M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. did not have any employees nor did they engaged any contractor to do any work for assessee, but they nor did they engaged any contractor to do any work for assessee, but they only provided bureau and office services and related facilities as passive services provider and not active work performer doing any specific work for assessee. Our attention was drawn to audited balance sheet and P&L a/c placed in record, in which no expenses on account of wages or salary for manpower was debited. He also relied on decision of S.R.F. Finance Ltd. vs. CBDT (1994) 122 CTR (Del) 431: (1995) 211 ITR 861 (Del) and V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Ltd. & Ors. vs. ITO (1999) 154 CTR (Kar) 564: (1999) 237 ITR 630 (Kar). He, further submitted that keeping in view nature of services rendered, amount paid by assessee does not attract provisions of s. 194C and accordingly lower authorities were not justified in invoking provisions of ss. 201 and 201A of IT Act, 1961. On other hand, learned senior Departmental Representative, Shri R.A. Gupta contended that under provisions of s. 194C, any person responsible for paying any sum for carrying out work including supply of labour for carrying out any work, is liable to deduct tax at source on payments so made for such work. He further submitted that services so provided to assessee firm as mentioned by AO in his order clearly come within purview of s. 194C, therefore, no fault can be found in order of lower authorities for applying provisions of ss. 201 and 201A of IT Act, 1961. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through orders of authorities below and entire material placed on record. We have also deliberated on case laws referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by learned Authorised Representative and Departmental Representative during course of proceedings before us, in context of factual matrix of case. From record, we found that during course of verification of TDS return filed by assessee for years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, it was noticed by AO that assessee company had debited amounts as service charges paid to M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. Rs. 46,20,000 for asst. yr. 1998-99, Rs. 24,84,000 for asst. yr. 1999-2000 and Rs. 21,60,000 for asst. yr. 2000-01. AO further noted that no tax was being deducted from sum paid to M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. assessee company explained before AO that they were availing services from M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. which are neither technical nor professional services nor in nature of job work or contract type of services and, therefore, such payments did not attract provisions of s. 194C. According to assessee, M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. was providing only office and bureau related services and such services were comprised of, office space, fixed assets and machineries and other facilities such as furniture, fixtures, air-conditioning, Xerox machines, computer, printers, internet connections, vehicles etc. stand of assessee was that M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. was providing total package of office and bureau related services which cannot be split up into individual or independent or item-wise activity and, therefore, this was not covered under any provisions regulating TDS. AO did not agree with arguments given by assessee. After referring judgment of Supreme Court of India in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) in which it was held that term any work in provisions of s. 194C meant any and not only work contract , he determined short deduction of tax and charged interest thereon. As per our considered view, provisions of s. 194C are attracted only where any sum is paid for carrying out any work including supply of labour for carrying out any work. Thus, "carrying out any work" is substance for making payment relating to such work, liable for deduction of tax at source under s. 194C of Act. For carrying out any work, manpower is sine qua non and without man power it cannot be said that work has been carried out. Under s. 194C each and every work/service is not covered, hence nature of work done or service performed is required to be seen. In instant case, package of facilities so provided, included office space computers, fax machine etc., which by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be performing any work by KSL. It is undisputed fact that no manpower was deployed by KSL so as to put these equipments and machinery or vehicles in use, for purpose of assessee firm. No expenditure on manpower was found to be debited in audited P&L a/c. These equipments were put to use by personnel of assessee firm. Mere providing of such equipments without any manpower, cannot be termed as carrying out of any work by KSL, when these equipments were undisputedly put to use by assessee firm by employing their own were undisputedly put to use by assessee firm by employing their own manpower. KSL was merely supplying these equipments as it is, and it was assessee firm which by employing their own personnel, putting to use these equipments for purpose of its business and profession as per its specific requirements. Without any manpower being employed for putting to use machinery, equipment and vehicles for purpose of assessee s business, it cannot be said that M/s Khaitan Serviees Ltd. had carried out any work for assessee firm. packages of facilities so provided to assessee firm did not involve any work or supply of any labour, nor were these facilities covered by specific services as referred to in s. 194C of Act. It is also not case of Department that KSL has engaged any outside contractor to do any work for assessee firm. Whereas KSL had merely provided bureau and office facilities to assessee firm, as passive service provider and not as active work performer doing any specific work. Even though word "work contract" as used in s. 194C is inclusive definition, but it does not include each and every work/service, just like professional and technical services are not covered under s. 194C, similarly other services where no work is performed by service provider nor any labour was supplied or engaged to do any work as part of services so provided or work so performed, these services cannot be said to be covered under s. 194C of Act. In case of S.R.F. Finance Ltd. vs. CBDT (supra) in respect of which special leave petition was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court in [(1995) 212 ITR (St) 375], it was held that it is most inappropriate to equate rendering of services with carrying out work that is why Parliament thought it expedient to expand meaning of word "work" by including in it supply of labour. Thus, it is obvious that because word "work" would not include within its amplitude supply of labour, Parliament added same by including latter in former thereby giving word "work" extended meaning. extended meaning cannot travel beyond extended area; Parliament has stressed scope of word to some extent only. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), have referred to decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and after analyzing same, it was held that judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, does not apply in respect of cases where no work is performed and no labour is supplied, and even after amendment made in year 1995 in IT Act, 1961, only specified services have been covered but it did not expand area to cover all work/services where no work is performed. word "work" in s. 194C referred to and comprehends only activities of workman. It was categorically observed that "perusal of definition of word work given in various dictionaries it is evident that word work has relation with word labour which has to be put by person for occupation, employment, business, task or function. word work refers and comprehends activities of workman and not operation in factory or on machine. It is physical force which has comprehended in word work . In instant case also M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. had undisputedly no employee nor any contractor was engaged to do work nor it has provided any labour. package of facilities so provided to assessee firm was devoid of any work or labour, therefore, not covered by provisions of s. 194C of Act. Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. ITO (2004) 89 TTJ (Luck) 669: (2002) 81 ITD 173 (Luck) while holding Circular No. 681, dt. 8th March, 1994 [(1994) 117 CTR (St) 229] issued by CBDT as invalid observed that Department stand in treating NIDC as contractor was not sustainable as they had rendered professional services which are not covered by s. 194C of Act. After referring to decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra), it further held that not all types of services are covered by s. 194C while referring to case of SRF Finance Ltd. (supra) and also to Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case (supra), in above order of Tribunal, observation of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) has been reproduced as under: "The term any work in s. 194C is aimed at type of work resulting in tangible material and by virtue of special inclusion supply of labour to carry out any work also is brought into net of tax deduction at source. This inclusive clause ropes in consideration for supply of labour. word supply connotes meaning of procuring , securing or bringing in and not rendering of one s own professional or technical services. To extent that circular govern payments to commission agents or brokers for services rendered by them, they travel beyond provisions of s. 194C and have no legal force and authorities functioning under Act are not bound by them." In view of above discussion, peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, we can reasonably conclude that while providing package of facilities to assessee firm, M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. did not carry out any work nor provided any labour nor engaged any contractor etc. for carrying out any work, therefore not covered in any way under provisions of s. 194C and also not covered within meaning of word work as explained by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra). Thus s. 194C does not have any obligation in respect of payment made by assessee-firrn to M/s Khaitan Services Ltd. In result, all appeals of assessee are allowed. *** KHAITAN & CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX