District Magistrate liable for Tax Collection at Source on dead rent/royalty upheld; double deduction issue remanded.

The Tribunal upheld the District Magistrate's liability for Tax Collection at Source (TCS) and the applicability of TCS provisions on dead rent/royalty. However, the issue of double deduction of TCS and tax payments by licensees/lessees was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the District Magistrate for TCS collection.
2. Applicability of TCS provisions on dead rent/royalty.
3. Double deduction of TCS and payment of taxes by licensees/lessees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

[I]. Liability of the District Magistrate for TCS collection:
The assessee argued that the District Magistrate is not responsible for TCS as the TAN Number is issued in the name of the District Mining Officer. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the District Magistrate, on behalf of the State Government, granted licenses and leases for mining and quarries and collected royalties from licensees and lessees. The District Mining Officer confirmed that these licenses and leases were granted by the District Magistrate. Therefore, the District Magistrate is liable for TCS collection, irrespective of the TAN being issued in the name of the District Mining Officer. This point was decided against the assessee.

[II]. Applicability of TCS provisions on dead rent/royalty:
The assessee contended that there is no provision under Section 206C for the collection of TCS on dead rent/royalty, arguing that dead rent is fixed in advance and royalty is dependent on extraction. The Tribunal, however, referred to Section 206C(1C), which mandates TCS collection on amounts payable or paid for granting leases or licenses for mining and quarrying. The Tribunal emphasized that the terminology used in the agreement (dead rent or royalty) is irrelevant; what matters is the amount payable or paid. Thus, the Tribunal held that TCS provisions apply to both dead rent and royalty, dismissing the assessee's contention on this ground.

[III]. Double deduction of TCS and payment of taxes by licensees/lessees:
The assessee claimed that all licensees/lessees are Income Tax assessees who have paid taxes, and thus, there should not be a double deduction of TCS. The Tribunal acknowledged the Karnataka High Court's decision in Sree Manjunatha Wines v. CIT, which stated that if the buyer has paid the tax, the authorities should not proceed against the assessee for TCS collection. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence of tax payments by the licensees/lessees before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to verify the tax payments made by the licensees/lessees and decide the issue accordingly, giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. This point was decided in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the District Magistrate's liability for TCS collection and the applicability of TCS provisions on dead rent/royalty. However, it remanded the issue of double deduction of TCS and tax payments by licensees/lessees back to the AO for verification.

---