Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the order of CIT(A)-2, Panaji dated 25.02.2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. The issues involved in all these appeals are identical and arise under identical facts and circumstances, our findings given in will mutatis mutandis apply to all the other captioned appeals.
ITA No.334 - 336/Bang/2022
2. The grounds raised in all the three appeals are common except for the figures. Hence, the grounds raised in ITA N.334/Bang/2022 is reproduced as under:-
“1. The impugned order u/s 206C(6A) & 206C(7) is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, and therefore liable to be set aside and cancelled. ORDER U/S 206C(6A).
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Impugned order: (i). BECAUSE, the delay in furnishing the declarations in Form No.27C is only technical and the same cannot be the ground for treating the assessee as assessee-in-default u/s 206C(6A). (ii). BECAUSE, the genuineness of the declarations is not in dispute and therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee-indefault u/s 206C(6A). (iii). BECAUSE, the law does not specify the time limit for obtaining the declarations in Form No.27 and the delay in obtaining of the same cannot be the ground for treating the assessee as assessee-indefault u/s 206C(1A). ORDER U/S 206C(7).
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the impugned order levying interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act.
4. The Grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal. For these and other Grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appeal in the interest of equity and justice.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Mining company. To verify the TDS compliance by the assessee, a survey U/s 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted at the business premises of assessee on 03.12.2019. During the survey proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee company has made sates of iron ores of Rs.153,96,56,000/- during the FY 2017-18. As per the provisions of Section 206C of Income tax Act, such sltes of iron ores are liable for TCS @ 1%. However, it is observed that no TCS has been made by the assessee
ITA No.334 - 336/Bang/2022 company on these sales. On being asked, it was contended that all these sales are made to end users and therefore, TCS is not applicable in such sales. The ACIT (TDS) discussed the provision of section 206A (1A) and he noted that the assessee had not obtained prescribed Form 27C from any of the buyers. Accordingly he held that the assessee has violated the provision of section 206C(1A) and (1B) r.w.r. 37C and show-cause was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed reply vide its letter dated 22.02.2020 which has been reproduced by the ACIT(TDS) in his order and he also rely on the judgemnt of Hon’ble Gujurat High Court in the case of in the case of Siyaram Metal Udyog Limited . The ACIT(TDS) was found that the said case law would not support the case of the assessee because the assessee had not obtained Form NO. 27C from the buyers on the date of survey. After discussing in details the ACIT(TDS) observed that the assessee is to be treated in default for not collecting TDS as per provision of section 206C, therefore, the assessee is also liable for interest as per Section 206C(7), accordingly he calculated short deduction of tax of Rs. 1,53,96,560/- and interest for 33 months of Rs. 50,80,865/- and completed the assessment proceedings.
4. Aggrieved from the order of ACIT(TDS) the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) , during the appellate proceedings the remand was also called from the ACIT(TDS) , who submitted the remand report and assessee also submitted the rejoinder which has been incorporated in his order by the CIT(A) . After
ITA No.334 - 336/Bang/2022 considering the details he dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before us.
6. The ld.AR reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities and he also reiterated written synopsis placed at page Nos.1 to 26, which is submitted before the CIT(A) and he further submitted that the Form No.27C was submitted before the lower authorities which was obtained within the time but the authorities below have not considered and raised the demand. The ld.AR requested that the matter may be sent back to CIT(TDS) for fresh verification of the form No.27C and he also undertook that the necessary documents shall be produced before the CIT(TDS) in support of his case.
7. The ld.DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the orders of the lower authorities and paper books filed by the assessee, we note that Form 27C was belatedly filed by the assessee and, therefore, was not accepted by the revenue. Now before us, the ld.AR submits form 27C has been correctly filed that needs to be considered. We direct the AO to verify the details and Form 27C in accordance with law and consider the claim as per law.
ITA No.334 - 336/Bang/2022
9. As we have remanded the AO in accordance with the above directions, and 336/Bang/2022 on identical issue on similar facts are also remanded mutatis mutandis to the file of AO.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (Beena Pillai) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 12th October, 2022. Vms Copy to:
1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
ITA No.334 - 336/Bang/2022
Date of Dictation ………………………………………
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member …………………….
Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr. P. S 3. .…………………………….
Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member ………………..
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. …………………..
Date of uploading the order on website……………………………..
If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so …………………………..
8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …………………..
Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement……………………………………
10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk …………………….