THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals have been filed by assessee against the separate orders of Id. CIT(A), Bareilly involving common issues. As such, they are being disposed of by this composite order. Details, for convenience, are being taken from . The following grounds have been raised in ITANo.362/Lkw/2019: "1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), confirming the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the instant assesses is not a 'person' for the purpose of section 206C (6C) of the Income Tax Act and hence the instant proceedings are patently illegal and bad in law.

2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), confirming the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C(6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the assessment order is itself barred by limitation.

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act.

4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals act and otherwise also TCS is not applicable on the same. 5. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A in refusing to condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within rime. 6. BECAUSE, on the fads and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since it is voilative of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the demand raised upon the assessee is based on wrong calculation made by the Assessing Authority and the same is unsustainable in law. 8. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) Is not justified in refusing to adjudicate upon the grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee concerning the instant controversy citing the reason that provisions of Rule 46A were attracted and the same were not satisfied The provisions of Rule 46A are extraneous to the instant controversy and the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in invoking the said provision.

9. BECAUSE, on the facts and the circumstances of the case,' the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT (A) is unsustainable being non speaking and highly cryptic.

10. BECAUSE, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has passed the order without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and- therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law."

2. The assessee's appeals are delayed by fifty one days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, accompanied by an affidavit of the Director of the assessee company. The contents of the affidavit read as under: “I Anurag Kumar Srivastav S/o Late Mr. S.C Srivastav R/o T-1604 Arihant ambience crossing repubiik, Ghaziabad in the capacity of Mining Officer of the above named appellant, do hereby solemnly declare and state on oath the following facts:

1. 1. That I am an Indian citizen, aged about 58 years and competent and duly authorized to sewer the present affidavit and confirmed the averments made herein.

2. That I am currently posted as Mining Officer at Pilibhit.

3. That, instant income tax appeal. the annexed application for condonation of delay Dt. 05.102020 has been prepared on my instructions or my predecessors and I have read-over the contents of the same and approve/re-approve the averments made.

4. There is a short delay of approximately 51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits."

(Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2020 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of I.T.AT. Rules.) Sd/- Sd/- (A.D. Jain) (T.S. Kapoor) Vice President Accountant Member Aks – Dtd. 16/12/2020 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File