2015 (9) TMI 1623 - AT - Income Tax

Liability of the assessee to collect tax u/s.206C(1C) - Applicability of the provision of Section 206C - Whether amount collected by the appellant by way of Tehbazari, Tehbazari-Vahan Stand and Balu- Morang, Gitti- Bolder-Vahan Shulk could not be treated as amount collected towards use of parking lot or toll plaza so as to make obligatory for the appellant to collect tax at source (TCS) from its licenses? - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that Tahbazari is collected by the assessee from temporary vendor squatting on the specified places for selling their goods. Thus, this is an issue of granting of a license in respect of using temporary place by the hawkers or the vendors for selling the goods. Toll has also been collected from the parking stand and market places in rural areas therefore in our opinion it cannot be different from toll plaza as well as parking lot. No illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer for treating the assessee in default in each of the assessment year as the assessee fails to collect the tax at source from these licensee. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act to the collection made by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from a common order of the CIT(A) regarding the applicability of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act to the appellant's collections. The appellant contested the order passed by the ITO(TDS) under Section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Act, arguing that the provisions of Section 206C(1C) were not applicable to them. The appellant collected amounts for Tehbazari, Tehbazari-Vahan Stand, and Balu-Morang, Gitti-Bolder-Vahan Shulk, claiming they should not be treated as amounts for a parking lot or toll plaza, thus not subject to tax collection at source (TCS). The Assessing Officer believed the collections fell under TCS, leading to short collection and interest calculations under Section 206(7) of the Act.

The appellant explained that the collections were for regulating hawking businesses and granting permissions for temporary vending spots, not for parking lots or toll plazas. However, the Assessing Officer viewed the collections as tolls, citing legal precedents defining tolls and the appellant's role as a local authority. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's order, prompting the appellant to appeal.

During the appeal, the appellant argued that the collections were not akin to tolls or for parking lots, emphasizing the nature of the collections and the absence of authorization under Section 206C(1C) to collect tax for granting leases or licenses. However, the tribunal disagreed, referencing a case where tolls were defined as compensation for temporary land use or vehicle passage. Since the appellant collected fees from vendors and parking stands, the tribunal deemed the collections similar to tolls and parking fees, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, all appeals by the appellant were dismissed.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the applicability of Section 206C to the appellant's collections, considering them akin to tolls and parking fees, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.