TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6,05,336/- (A.Y. 2006-07) and Rs. 6,08,930 (A.Y. 2007-08). (ii) Not allowing the claim of interest charged by the Govt. on late deposit of royalty installments under the head royalty expenses of Rs. 49,706 (A.Y. 2006-07) and Rs. 2,64,889/- (A.Y. 2007-08) alleging it to be penal interest whereas the interest is compensatory in nature. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the. Assessee's AR contends that the assessee was appointed as a contractor under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 by proper tendering process followed by a duly executed agreement in this behalf. As per Section 206C(1C) of the I T Act TCS is collectible from assessee which is prepaid tax to be given credit at the time of assessment of tax liability. Durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not awarded a mining contract by the State Govt.and was only engaged as a contractor for collection of excess royalty from the lessees of mines. Therefore, rightfully the credit for such taxes belong to the lessees of mines and not to the contractor, who has been engaged only for collection of royalty alongwith tax by the State Govt. The State Govt. in this process is saved from the botheration of deploying its manpower for this collection work. 4.7 In view of the above discussion, I find that the AO was justified in not allowing the credit of taxes collected by the appellant of Rs. 6,05,336/- from the lessees under the provisions of Section 206C of the I.T. Act. Further the total receipts are understated to the extent of this amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n nature. (ii) No evidence was produced to support the expenses. It is not disputed that the interest is paid to State Govt. under Rajasthan Mining Deptt. pursuant to above contract for belated payments of monthly royalty instalments. The interest is thus compensatory in nature and governed by valid contract under statutory provisions. By no stretch of imagination it cannot be treated as penal in nature for which following case laws have been relied on . 1. Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT 299 ITR 92 (P&H) 2. CIT vs. Carbon Industries (P) Ltd.259 ITR 373 (Mad) 3. ACIT vs. Niko Resources Ltd. 123 TTJ 310(Ahd.'C) Besides the interest payment is governed by the business expediency also, as due to shortage of funds, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's case is covered under the TCS provisions and that is why the TCS is collected in this behalf u/s 206C. It is undisputed fact that that TCS payment is duly certified by payer Rajasthan Govt. in prescribed Form No. 27D; consequently the credit of TCS has to be given to assessee as a matter of right, more so, when the corresponding income from contracted activities as per Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, is included in assessee's income. In these facts and circumstances, I find merit in the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that denial of credit tantamount to confiscating assessee's tax for which corresponding income is included in its taxable income. Such confiscation amounts to unjust enrichmen....