9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee who was liable to collect tax at source (TCS) on the amounts received from illegal miners/transporters, having failed to do so, was to be treated as 'assessee-in-default' u/s. 206C(6) of the Act, uphold the same.
As the CIT(Appeals) had followed the view taken by the Tribunal qua the identical issues, therefore, finding no infirmity in the same, we uphold his order. Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 41 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act, dated 01.07.2019 had, inter alia, held viz. (i) the assessee was to be held as being default for not collecting tax at source (TCS) a/w. interest on illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal transportation u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act; and (ii) for its failure to deduct tax at source in respect of contribution towards District Mining Fund (DMF). Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act, dated 01.07.2019 raised a demand of Rs. 5,20,32,389/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) after taking cognizance of the fact that the issues involved in the present appeal were squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, 152 Taxmann.com 583, dated 21.07.2023, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily or otherwise, by way of an agreement or otherwise. Now a bare perusal of the aforesaid meaning of the term "transfer" reveals that the same not only takes within its sweep parting of any interest in an asset or creating any interest in any asset in any manner... .voluntarily or involuntarily, but also dispenses with the existence of an agreement. In fact, the term "or otherwise" as used in the aforesaid statutory provision can also be traced in section 206C(1C) of the Act. 29. On the basis of the aforesaid broad meaning of the term "transfer" as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f 1-4-1962, we shall now look into the aspect that as to whether or not the assessee i.e. DMS:0 had transferred to the illegal miners/transporters of minerals any interest in the mine. 30. Although it is the claim of the Ld. AR that there is no transfer either of the asset i.e. land or any interest in the same by the assessee i.e. DMO in favour of the illegal miners/transporters of minerals, but a careful perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. 10 times of the royalty amount is to be recovered from the illegal miners/transporters, therefore, we are unable to comprehend that as to on what basis it is averred by the Ld. AR that the said amounts so received by the assessee would not fall within the realm of section 206C(1C) of the Act. As the assessee in the case before us had not only received royalty from the illegal miners/transporters of minerals as it would have in the normal course received in case of a regular lease or license, but in fact was in receipt of 10 times of royalty amount from them, therefore, the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee was not exigible for collection of tax at source (TCS) on the amounts received from the illegal miners/transporters of minerals being devoid and bereft of any substance is liable to be rejected. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee who was liable to collect tax at source (TCS) on the amounts received from illegal miners/transporters, having failed to do so, was to be treated as 'assessee-in-default' u/s. 206C(6) of the Act, uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be gathered on a perusal of the accounts of the assessee as had been placed before us. We, say so, for the reason that a perusal of the "Receipts and Payments account" of the assessee i.e. DMO for the year ending 31-3-2017 reveals reference of "District Mineral Foundation Trust" on the same, Page 38 to 41 of APB. Also, a similar position prevails in the audited accounts of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year ending 31-3-2018. Apart from that, we find that in the accounts of the assessee i.e. DMO for the immediately succeeding year i.e. F. Y. 2017-18 the payments made by the lease holders towards "Contribution funds" are therein reflected. As the accounts of the assessee prim-facie militates against the aforesaid observations arrived at by us by looking into the provisions of section 9C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, therefore, in our considered view the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to the file of the A.O. The A.O is directed to verify as to whether the assessee was in receipt of contributions towards NMET from the lease holders; or as claimed by the assessee the amounts were paid by the respective lease holders direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had received contribution from the lease holders towards the District Mining Fund, the demand raised by the A.O including interest thereon u/s. 206C(1C) r.w.s.206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act is confirmed. 6.3.3 The A.O. is directed to verify as to whether the appellant was in receipt of contributions towards DMF from the leaseholders; or the amounts were paid by the respective lease holders directly to the DMF and give effect to the directions as per para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 above. Hence, this ground of appeal is adjudicated, subject to the directions as above. 6.4 As regards collection of tax at source on amount collected for National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), as per the above referred order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur, the A.O is directed to verify as to whether the appellant was in receipt of contributions towards NMET from the leaseholders; or the amounts were paid by the respective lease holders directly to the NMET. In case the lease holders were directly making payments to NMET, there was no obligation on the appellant to collect tax at source (TCS) on the contributions made by the lease holders to NMET. However, if the appellant was in receipt of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o infirmity did emerge from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly followed the same and dismissed the appeal. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, 152 Taxmann.com 583. As the CIT(Appeals) had followed the view taken by the Tribunal qua the identical issues, therefore, finding no infirmity in the same, we uphold his order. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.63/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/RPR/2025 A.Ys: 2014-15 to 2019-20 12. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeals remains the same as were there before us in ITA No.63/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14, therefore, our findings recorded while disposing of the appeal in ITA No.63/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply for disposing off the captioned appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/RPR/2025, A.Ys: 2014-15 to 2019-20. Accordingly, we dispose off the captioned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
