Tribunal grants relief to assessee, emphasizes substantial justice over technicalities.

The tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeals, condoning the delay in filing appeals and directing the AO to verify the applicability of the first proviso to Section 206C(6A) regarding Tax Collection at Source (TCS) demands. The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities, noting the need to consider retrospective application of relevant provisions. The AO was instructed to provide the assessee with opportunities to present necessary documents, with the order pronounced on 04/10/2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Tax Collection at Source (TCS) demands.
3. Ignorance of TCS provisions.
4. Applicability of Section 206C(6A) proviso.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15 were delayed by 341 days. The delay was attributed to various administrative and financial approvals, the West Bengal Assembly Election schedule, necessary administrative follow-up, amendments in West Bengal Mines concession rules, online tender processes, administrative transfers, and puja vacation. The Revenue did not rebut these reasons. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)*, which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals on merits.

2. Tax Collection at Source (TCS) Demands:
The appeals challenged the correctness of the lower authorities' action in raising TCS demands for the respective assessment years. The assessee, a District Land & Land Reforms Office, functioning as the administrative District Magistrate, collected royalties and cess from mining companies but failed to collect TCS as required under Section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee did not file any return in Form 27EQ and calculated the revenue loss due to non-collection of TCS.

3. Ignorance of TCS Provisions:
The assessee claimed ignorance of the TCS provisions and argued that there were no instructions from the state government regarding TCS collection. The AO rejected this explanation, stating that ignorance of the law is not justifiable, especially for a government entity. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] affirmed the AO's decision, emphasizing that the appellant, being a high-ranking government official, had a greater responsibility to be aware of relevant laws. The CIT(A) found no merit in the appellant's assertion of ignorance and upheld the AO's action.

4. Applicability of Section 206C(6A) Proviso:
The tribunal considered whether the assessee could benefit from the first proviso to Section 206C(6A), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from 01.07.2012. This proviso states that a person who fails to collect TCS shall not be deemed an assessee in default if the payer has furnished their return of income, included the amount in their income, and paid the tax due. The tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) examined the effect of this proviso. The tribunal observed that similar provisions in Section 201(1) regarding TDS have been held to have retrospective effect by various judicial precedents. Therefore, the tribunal declined the Revenue's argument against the retrospective application of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) and directed the AO to verify the necessary facts about the assessee's payers in consequential proceedings.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the facts regarding the application of the first proviso to Section 206C(6A) and provide the assessee with three effective opportunities to present necessary documents. The order was pronounced in open court on 04/10/2019.

---