Tribunal Upholds Decision on Section 206C(1C) Applicability

The tribunal upheld the decision that Section 206C(1C) applied only to the minimal amount payable by the concessionaire, Re. 1/- per year, deeming TCS collection impractical. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, ruling no violation of Section 206C. The judgment highlighted legislative intent and practical TCS collection considerations within the concession agreement and escrow provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of TCS under Section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Amount on which TCS is to be collected.
3. Compliance with the concession agreement and escrow account provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of TCS under Section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue raised by the Revenue Department was the non-collection of TCS from the toll plaza. The assessee, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), had not collected the tax from the concessionaire, M/s Oriental Pathways (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd., who was granted the right to collect toll fees. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that under Section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act, every person who grants a lease or license for a toll plaza must collect TCS from the licensee. The AO found that NHAI had defaulted in collecting TCS and issued a show cause notice to the assessee.

2. Amount on which TCS is to be collected:
The AO concluded that the concessionaire was entitled to collect toll fees and that NHAI should have collected TCS on these toll fees. However, the CIT(Appeals) held that the amount payable by the concessionaire to NHAI was only Re. 1/- per year, which had been paid. Therefore, there was no infringement of the provisions of Section 206C. The Revenue Department contended that the agreements did not safeguard the interest of the Revenue Department and that the toll fees collected should have been subject to TCS.

3. Compliance with the concession agreement and escrow account provisions:
The concession agreement between NHAI and the concessionaire included provisions for an escrow account where toll fees were deposited. The agreement specified that the concessionaire was granted the right to collect toll fees and deposit them in the escrow account. The AO argued that since NHAI was a signatory to the escrow account, TCS should have been collected. However, the CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal found that the toll fees collected were meant to compensate the concessionaire for the project costs and maintenance expenses, and NHAI was only entitled to Re. 1/- per year. Thus, the minimal amount of Re. 1/- was not practical for TCS collection.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) that the provisions of Section 206C(1C) were applicable but only on the amount payable by the concessionaire, which was Re. 1/- per year. The tribunal found that it was not practicable to collect TCS on this minimal amount. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order pronounced that there was no infringement of the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. The judgment emphasized the intent of the legislation and the practical aspects of TCS collection in the context of the concession agreement and escrow account provisions.

---