BASHCO ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (TDS), KOLHAPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had obtained the necessary declarations and could not be treated as an assessee in default for the tax amount, the levy of interest under Section 206C(7) was not sustainable. Therefore, the interest demand was deleted.
What were the facts?
During a survey, it was found that the assessee company sold scrap without collecting tax at source as required by Section 206C. The assessee provided declarations received from a customer, but the TDS Officer held them liable for tax and interest.
What were the issues?
Whether interest under Section 206C(7) is leviable when the assessee is not treated as an assessee in default for the primary tax collection obligation under Section 206C.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Kolhapur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 04.04.2019 for the assessment year 2008-09.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest liability u/s 206C(7) of RS. 28127/-.
2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that when the TCS demand is nullified in favour of assessee, interest liability on the same under 206C(7) does not arises.
3. The interest demand raised may please be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add, modify, alter, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal
.”
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of CI Casting etc. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kolhapur conducted a survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 13.02.2009. During the course of survey proceedings, it was found that the appellant company had sold scrap of Rs.98,35,715/- and Rs.12,95,840/- during the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively without collection of tax deducted at source as provided u/s 206C of the Act. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon the assessee as to why the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default. The appellant company filed explanation in response to the said show-cause notice stating that it had made the scrap sales to one customer, namely, Melting Point, Kolhapur from whom it had received declaration u/s 206C(IA) in Form No.27C dated 11.05.2007 and the same were forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vide letter dated 15.05.2007. The appellant company further stated that out of total scrap sales of Rs.98,35,715/- the appellant made sale to Melting Point, Kolhapur, to the extent Rs.59,27,699/- was made during the financial year 2007-08 and in respect of balance of scrap sales of Rs.39,07,726/- during the financial year 2007-08, the tax was collected at source and credited to the Central Government’s Account. However, the TDS Officer by holding that the assessee had failed to deliver the copy of the declaration received in Form No.27C received from Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur held that the assessee is in default and passed an order directing the assessee to pay a sum of Rs.67,160/- and interest thereon of Rs.28,127/- invoking the provisions of section 206C(7) of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the TDS Officer, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order taking cognizance of fact that the declaration in Form No.27C had been filed at the time of assessment, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for TDS amount of Rs.67,160/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest u/s 206C(7) amounting to Rs.28,127/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us with above extracted grounds of appeal.
More judgments on Section 206C
- Abc Construction, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 703/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)… vs Abc Construction, BerhmaporeITA 3070/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Aggarwal Iron & Steel Corporation, Ludhiana vs Jao Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), LudhianaITA 903/CHANDI/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Shree Shanker Trading Co, Udaipur vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS…ITA 212/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Shree Shankar Trading Co., Udaipur vs Income Tax Officer (TDS), UdaipurITA 202/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026