2018 (11) TMI 940 - AT - Income Tax

Liability for tax collection at source u/s 206C - Held that - Identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessees sister-concerns as stated the assessee had filed W.P. before the Hon ble High Court that it was not liable for TCS under the provisions of section 206C of the I.T. Act and therefore, the matter was sub judice. In the light of the above factual background, Form No. 27C declarations, needs first to be examined by the AO and he shall forward the same to Principal CIT or CIT as the case may be. AO shall also examine the declarations countersigned by the Chartered Accountant stating that the buyers of timber from the assessee had duly paid the taxes on the same. AO after examining Form 27C declarations and declarations countersigned by the CA, shall take a decision in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Therefore appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. We deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the issue to the A.O. to consider whether the assessee is liable for tax collection at source u/s 206C - Appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 206C of the I.T. Act to imported timber.
2. Admission of additional evidence in the form of Form No. 27C declarations.
3. Liability for Tax Collection at Source (TCS) under Section 206C(1A) and proviso to Section 206C(6A).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 206C of the I.T. Act to Imported Timber:
The primary issue was whether Section 206C of the I.T. Act, which mandates tax collection at source (TCS) for certain transactions, applies to timber imported into India. The assessees argued that Section 206C(6) should not apply to imported timber but only to timber "obtained" through a forest lease or other modes within the country. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petitions challenging this interpretation, and the CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) orders based on this judgment.

2. Admission of Additional Evidence:
The assessees filed petitions under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and affidavits from their Managing Directors to admit additional evidence. This evidence included Form No. 27C declarations and Chartered Accountant-certified documents showing that certain buyers had included the timber in their turnover and paid taxes on it. The assessees contended that these forms were not obtained earlier due to their bona fide belief that Section 206C did not apply to them and because proceedings were initiated only in the financial year 2011-12. The Tribunal found that these additional evidences were crucial for determining the assessees' liability under Section 206C(1A) and the proviso to Section 206C(6A).

3. Liability for TCS Under Section 206C(1A) and Proviso to Section 206C(6A):
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue had been considered in the cases of the assessees' sister concerns, where additional evidence was admitted, and the cases were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal observed that Section 206C(1A) exempts assessees from TCS if the buyers furnish Form No. 27C declarations stating that the timber is used for manufacturing, processing, or producing other articles and not for trading. Additionally, the proviso to Section 206C(6A), effective from 1.7.2012, states that if the buyers have paid taxes on the timber, the assessees cannot be treated as 'assessees in default.'

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO to determine the assessees' liability for TCS under these provisions. The AO was directed to examine the Form No. 27C declarations and the Chartered Accountant-certified documents, and decide in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing to the assessees.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and equity in admitting the additional evidence and directed the AO to re-examine the assessees' liability for TCS under Section 206C of the I.T. Act.