2016 (3) TMI 859 - AT - Income Tax

Additions made u/s. 206C(6)/206C(7) - non collection of TCS on sale of DOC (de-oiled cake), maize husk and cotton waste nspite of the fact that those items were scrap as defined u/s 206(c) - Held that - To elaborate, perusal of manufacturing process of DOC amply testifies that the entire manufacturing process is designed to obtain two main products which are usable as such, namely, oil and DOC. This DOC which is high in protein content is used as a fertilizer or chicken feed or cattle feed. This DOC also is pass through various other manufacturing stages to suit the customers as is required by them. The enormous economical value of DOC is testified by the fact that more than 80% is generated and out of such generation, around 90% is exported to different countries. All the aforesaid facts indicate that DOC is a by-product and it certainly cannot be categorized as scrap and waste and it has its own market value. Generally, the scrap is either thrown out or sold at cheaper rate because it cannot be used as raw material for manufactured or different items. In the case of a by-product, it has its own market value and can be used as such. In view of above, we find that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer has erred in categorizing DOC as scrap within the meaning of Explanation to Section 206C. Regarding the raw cotton being treated as scrap we find raw cotton is only a part of raw material which is of lower quality (lower count cotton) from which the thin yarn cannot be manufactured such thick quality cotton was separated at the initial warehousing stage and sold off to other yarn manufacturers including that for export. So, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that such raw cotton does not arise from manufacturing or mechanical working as it is merely a segregation of raw material as was pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, these reasoned finding of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side, which is confirmed. Regarding Maize Husk (Fiber)percentages of husk as a by-product is close to 10% and it is mainly used in poultry farm, animal food and pharma industries. Since maize husk fiber is itself subjected to various manufacturing stages and as enormous economic value, it is one product manufactured and cannot be considered as a waste or scrap within the manufacturing process. In view of the above, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that main husk is a by-product and the same cannot be considered as scrap and waste as provided in the Explanation to Section 206C of the Income-tax Act. TDS u/s 194C OR 194j - short deduction of tds - non deduction of tax at source on payment of port charges - TDS @ 10% OR 2% - Demand u/s 201/201(1A) for non-deduction of tax at source on the differential amount - Held that - CIT(A) rightly found that C&F agents were nowhere remotely indicated in the explanation to section 194J of Income tax Act nor has been explained by the AO that how C&F was covered u/s. 194J of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the action of Assessing Officer invoking provision u/s 194J in respect to port charges payment for all the assessment years as unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in this regard does not require any interference from our side, which is confirmed.

Issues Involved:

1. Violation of Rule 46(A) by the CIT(A).
2. Deletion of additions made under sections 206C(6)/206C(7) for non-collection of TCS on sales of DOC, maize husk, and cotton waste.
3. Classification of DOC, maize husk, and cotton waste as by-products or scrap under section 206C.
4. Reliance on ITAT decision in Navin Fluorine Industries vs. ACIT.
5. Deletion of additions made under sections 201(1)/201(1A) for short deduction of tax at source on port charges.
6. Classification of services provided by C&F agents under section 194C or 194J.
7. Applicability of TDS provisions under section 194J for port charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Rule 46(A) by the CIT(A):
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46(A) while passing the order, making it null and void. However, the judgment does not specifically address this issue in detail, implying that the primary focus was on the substantive issues of tax collection and classification of products.

2. Deletion of Additions under Sections 206C(6)/206C(7):
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made for non-collection of TCS on sales of DOC, maize husk, and cotton waste, which were classified as scrap under section 206C. The CIT(A) held that these items were by-products and not scrap, thus not subject to TCS provisions. The judgment discusses the manufacturing processes and economic value of these items, concluding that they are usable as such and do not fit the definition of scrap.

3. Classification of DOC, Maize Husk, and Cotton Waste:
The primary dispute was whether these items should be classified as scrap or by-products. The CIT(A) and the ITAT concluded that DOC, maize husk, and cotton waste are by-products with significant economic value and are used in various industries. They are not waste or scrap as defined in section 206C, which requires the items to be unusable as such.

4. Reliance on ITAT Decision in Navin Fluorine Industries vs. ACIT:
The CIT(A) relied on the ITAT decision in Navin Fluorine Industries, which held that scrap must arise from manufacturing or mechanical working and be unusable as such. The Revenue argued that this case was distinguishable and should not be followed as a precedent. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s reliance on this decision, finding it applicable to the present case.

5. Deletion of Additions under Sections 201(1)/201(1A):
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made for short deduction of tax at source on port charges. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in applying section 194C instead of 194J. The CIT(A) and ITAT found that the services provided by C&F agents were covered under section 194C as per the CBDT Circular No. 715 and judicial precedents, and not under section 194J.

6. Classification of Services by C&F Agents:
The Revenue contended that the services provided by C&F agents were professional services requiring specialized knowledge and should be classified under section 194J. The CIT(A) and ITAT concluded that the services were contractual in nature, involving handling and transportation of goods, and thus fell under section 194C, supported by the CBDT Circular and judicial decisions.

7. Applicability of TDS Provisions under Section 194J for Port Charges:
The Assessing Officer had applied section 194J for TDS on port charges, considering them professional services. The CIT(A) and ITAT found that the services provided by C&F agents were not professional or technical services as defined under section 194J but were contractual services covered under section 194C. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no legal infirmity.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The ITAT confirmed that DOC, maize husk, and cotton waste are by-products and not scrap, and the services provided by C&F agents fall under section 194C, not 194J. The judgment emphasized the economic value and usability of the by-products and the contractual nature of the services provided by C&F agents.

← Previous Next →