9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 296 - AT - Income TaxDefault for noncollection of tax at source as per the provisions of Section 206C(6A) - sale of the timber - Held that - The assessee should not be treated as assessee in default in terms of the amended provisions of the law. From the order of the ld. CIT(A) we find that all the parties to whom the sales were made have furnished their respective returns of income. We also find that the ld. DR has not brought anything contrary to the argument of the ld.AR. Accordingly we also relied on the order of ITAT Ahmedabad A Bench in the case of K.P.G.Enterprise (2014 (8) TMI 716 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ), we reverse the order of the authorities below and allow this ground in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of the order of the Assessing Officer on account of TCS and interest on TCS assessed under sections 206(6) and 206C(7). 2. Interpretation of the provisions of Sections 206C(6) and 206C(7). 3. Consideration of facts and documents produced by the appellant assessee. 4. Remand report and conclusion regarding the filing of IT returns and payment of taxes by deductees. 5. Misconstruction of the Apex Court's and High Courts' judgments. 6. Legality of the demand of tax on TCS amounting to Rs. 46,77,109/-. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of the Order of the Assessing Officer: The primary issue in both appeals was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's (AO) order treating the assessee as in default for non-collection of tax at source (TCS) under Section 206C(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO found that the assessee, engaged in the wholesale timber business, failed to collect TCS at the appropriate rate from various parties and raised a demand of Rs. 39,30,344/-. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. 2. Interpretation of Sections 206C(6) and 206C(7): The assessee argued that the CIT(A) misinterpreted Sections 206C(6) and 206C(7). The CIT(A) held that the Supreme Court's decision in Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which states that no further tax could be recovered from the deductor if the tax has already been paid by the recipient, had limited applicability. The CIT(A) emphasized that the TDS provisions are based on the philosophy of "PAY AS YOU EARN" and require strict compliance. 3. Consideration of Facts and Documents: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the facts and documents produced, which demonstrated that the buyers had paid the taxes in their respective returns. The CIT(A) dismissed this claim, stating that the assessee did not provide direct proof that the deductees had paid the tax, unlike the case in Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. 4. Remand Report and Conclusion on IT Returns: The CIT(A) had called for a remand report, and the AO concluded that all deductees had filed their IT returns and paid taxes. Despite this, the CIT(A) held that the assessee could not be relieved from being treated as in default due to the gross violation of TDS provisions. 5. Misconstruction of Judgments: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) misconstrued the judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts, leading to an arbitrary and erroneous conclusion. The CIT(A) maintained that the interpretation of the Coca-Cola judgment by the assessee was unjustified and against the objective of TDS provisions. 6. Legality of the Demand of Tax on TCS: The assessee challenged the legality of the demand of Rs. 46,77,109/- on TCS. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the demand was as per law. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to collect TCS at the time of selling timber but demonstrated that the buyers had filed their income tax returns. The Tribunal referred to the proviso to Section 206C(6A), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which provides relief to the collector of tax at source if the buyer has filed their return, taken into account the amount for computing income, and paid the tax due. The Tribunal also cited the ITAT Ahmedabad's decision in K.P.G. Enterprise and the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which supported the assessee's claim that no further tax could be recovered if the recipient had paid the tax. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee should not be treated as in default, as the buyers had filed their returns and paid the taxes. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee. Result: Both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the demand of Rs. 46,77,109/- was set aside.
|
