M/S BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. DY, CIT(TDS) CIR. 1, NAGPUR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 14/07/2016 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

The brief facts of the case are that, a survey u/s 133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 11.08.2015 and it was noticed that the Assessee Company has collected Tax Collected at Source (‘TCS’ for short) but has not deposited the same into Government Account. Subsequently, information was called for from the Assessee in respect of the TCS. From information furnished by M/s. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT the Assessee company, it is seen that TCS of Rs.26,08,082/- was collected during the financial year 2014-15 on sale of coal, but the same was not deposited. The Assessee Company was given an opportunity to explain why it should not be treated as ‘assessee in default’ for the amount of TCS collected but not paid in view of provision of section 206C(6A) of the Act. After considering the reply from the assessee an order u/s 206C(6A) of the Act came to be passed on 26.11.2015 by treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ and directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,80,052/-.

Aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2015, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.07.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) dated 14.07.2016, the assessee has preferred the instant appeal on following grounds: The Id. DCIT and Hon'ble CIT Appeal is not justified in considering the “1) fact that the assessee is not required to collect tax at source u/s. 206C (6A) and Explanation provided under the said section under I.T. Act. The Lower Authorities have missed the explanation provided under the said section in total when the purchasing party are assessed to Income tax, filed their return u/s. 139 and taken into account the transaction of the assessee and paid the taxes. This amounts double taxation on assessee and also to the purchasing party.

During the pendency of the present appeal, an application for additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules has been filed by the assessee on 27.04.2022 by producing Form No.27BA of two parties. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the assessee has received the certificate from Chartered Accountant in the prescribed Form No.27BA in accordance with proviso to Section 206C(6A) of the Act, therefore sought permission to produce the additional Evidence before us.

The Form No.27BA of two parties (mentioned supra) produced by the Assessee are admissible under law and the same are relevant for deciding the issue under consideration, since the same was not available with the assessee to produce the same authorities below, filed an application to produce the same before us as additional evidence. In our opinion, the assessee has made sufficient cause to admit the additional evidence, accordingly we allow the assessee to produce the documents as additional evidence.

In view of the above, since the Form No.27BA of two parties produced as Additional evidence by the Assessee has been allowed to be produced, we set aside the impugned order to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer to examine the facts in the light of the above discussions and the additional evidence produced by the M/s. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT assessee and pass order in accordance with law. The assessee is hereby directed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 8th Day of June, 2022.