2019 (5) TMI 734 - AT - Income Tax

Demand u/s 206C(1) and u/s 206C(7) - TCS - requirement to collect tax at source while selling scrap - assessee is engaged in the business of ship breaking - seeking declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for re-use in manufacturing process - HELD THAT - As mandates any person responsible for collecting taxes u/s 206(1) need not to do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for re-use in manufacturing process or producing article or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained at the very same moment when sale is effected. In the present case, the assessee has submitted declaration before the AO in requisite forms. CIT(A) has appreciated the facts in right perspective and rightly held that the assessee was not required to collect taxes at sources when sales were made as required under section 206C. We do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A), hence, appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order deleting demand under section 206C(1) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Tax Collection on Scrap Sales:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a demand under sections 206C(1) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act. The AO claimed the assessee failed to collect taxes on scrap sales, leading to the demand. The assessee argued that the sales were not scrap material but identifiable products, exempt from tax collection. Additionally, the assessee cited section 206C(1A), stating no tax collection is required if the buyer furnishes a declaration for manufacturing purposes. The CIT(A) accepted both contentions and deleted the demand.

2. Analysis of Section 206C(1A):
Section 206C(1A) exempts tax collection if the buyer provides a declaration for manufacturing purposes. The assessee submitted the required forms to the AO, relieving them of tax collection obligations. The CIT(A) noted that the declaration need not be obtained at the sale moment, as long as it is submitted. Citing judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court, the CIT(A) upheld the assessee's position, leading to the demand deletion.

3. Judicial Interpretations and Precedents:
The judgment referenced various judicial interpretations, emphasizing the importance of buyer declarations for tax exemption. The CIT(A) relied on precedents to support the assessee's compliance with section 206C requirements. Notably, the CIT(A) highlighted that the delay in form submission does not revive tax collection liability retroactively, aligning with legal principles and court decisions.

4. Appreciation of Facts by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) correctly analyzed the facts and legal provisions, concluding that the assessee fulfilled the necessary requirements for tax exemption on sales under section 206C. The judgment noted the AO's acknowledgment of forms submitted by the assessee, indicating tax payments by buyers, further supporting the deletion of the demand. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the tax demand under sections 206C(1) and 206C(7), emphasizing the assessee's compliance with legal requirements and buyer declarations for tax exemption on sales. The judgment underscored the significance of timely form submission and judicial interpretations in interpreting tax collection provisions, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.