2017 (12) TMI 813 - HC - Income Tax

Validity order passed under sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) - requisite details of the tax collected at source from the buyers - Held that - This was not a case of non-collection of tax at source and that the assessee had already filed requisite details to establish the TCS collected from its buyers, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the deletion of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer under sections 206C (6) and 206C (7) of the Act. No substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeals, therefore, fail and are, accordingly, summarily dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common order under section 260A of the Income Tax Act regarding deletion of orders under sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Analysis:
The appellant-revenue challenged a common order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deletion of orders under sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the dispute was not about non-collection but improper collection of tax at source by the assessee, a timber trading company. The Assessing Officer had made significant demands, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary details of tax collection and reasons for selling timber after discounts and settlements, with supporting documents like Form No.27C. Despite ample opportunity, the revenue failed to provide any specific material to challenge the findings. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on these factual findings.

The Tribunal's factual findings indicated that the case did not involve non-collection of tax at source, and the assessee had submitted adequate details to prove tax collection from buyers. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in upholding the deletion of demands raised by the Assessing Officer under sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose from the impugned order. Therefore, the appeals were summarily dismissed as they failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity warranting interference.