M/S. RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT,BHILAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 105 To 107/Rpr/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2009-10 M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport Acc Main Gate, Jamul Square, Jamul, Bhilai.(C.G.)Pan : Ashfr7461F . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Tds, Raipur (C.G.) द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am The Present Bunch Of Appeals Is Challenged Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Turned Out Of Consolidated Order Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Raipur [For Short “Ao”], For Three Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2006-07 To 2008-09. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 14

TDS) on finance charges/interest payment to non-banking financial company/corporation [for short “NBFC”] is sufficient to hold the appellant as an ‘assessee in default’ within the realm of section 201(1) of the Act?’ Conversely ‘whether levy of penalty u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 221(1) of the Act is protected by the first proviso to section

M/S. RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT,BHILAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 105 To 107/Rpr/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2009-10 M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport Acc Main Gate, Jamul Square, Jamul, Bhilai.(C.G.)Pan : Ashfr7461F . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Tds, Raipur (C.G.) द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am The Present Bunch Of Appeals Is Challenged Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Turned Out Of Consolidated Order Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Raipur [For Short “Ao”], For Three Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2006-07 To 2008-09. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 14

TDS) on finance charges/interest payment to non-banking financial company/corporation [for short “NBFC”] is sufficient to hold the appellant as an ‘assessee in default’ within the realm of section 201(1) of the Act?’ Conversely ‘whether levy of penalty u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 221(1) of the Act is protected by the first proviso to section

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), DURG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

section 234E in the course of processing of TDS returns and intimation u/s 200A(1) for the F.Y. 2012/13 (A.Y. 2013/14) by following decision of hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of "Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI" in favour of department but ignoring and even not dealing with decision of hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

section 234E in the course of processing of TDS returns and intimation u/s 200A(1) for the F.Y. 2012/13 (A.Y. 2013/14) by following decision of hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of "Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI" in favour of department but ignoring and even not dealing with decision of hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS SATYANARAYAN NATHULAL, TILDA-NEORA

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

192,251 10,600,080 Net Profit 284,339 454,178 554,820 G.P Ratio 7.40% 2.83% 2.16% N.P. Ratio 0.37% 0.18% 0.11% Considering above facts and justification, it is clear that assessee had not made any bogus purchase to suppress the profits and the profits shown by the assessee is real and genuine. In the instant case the profitability

M/S GOPAL RICE INDUSTRIES, ,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 291/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries Village- Sambalpur, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS was done on hire purchase interest paid to NBFC violating the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.8,54,977/- and therefore, notice u/s.148 of the Act is issued

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED (TAN- BPLS04875D), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SECL CENTRAL STORES (TAN- JBPS03090D), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN- JBPS13157E), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN-BPLS04617E) , SURGUJA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN- JBPS03804D), ANUPPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. (TAN- JBPS02667A), KUSMUNDA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SECL, O/O CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TAN- JBPS02072A), RAIGARH

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur