2016 (12) TMI 1357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....involving common pleadings reads as under:- The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in deleting the order passed u/s 206C(6) of the I.T. Act of AY 2006-07 is Rs. 76,19,752/- (u/s 206C(6) of Rs. 3,39,226/-, u/s 206C(7) of Rs. 2,44,242/-, u/s 206C(6)-27C of Rs. 40,90,863/- & u/s 206C(7)-27C of Rs. 29,45,421/-) and for AY 2007-08 is Rs. 60,88,369/- (u/s 206C(6) of Rs. 20,26,756/-, u/s 206C(7) of Rs. 12,16,051/-, u/s 206C(6)-27C of Rs. 17,78,479/- & u/s 206C(7)-27C of Rs. 10,76,087/-) by the A.O. 3. We come to relevant facts now in former assessment year 2006- 07. This assessee is a company engaged in trading and sawing of timber logs. The department carried out a survey in its case on 14.03.2007. It would find the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;   Less: Scrap sales not liable for TCS being retail sales for personal consumption 15,48,194 - 6,58,886 3,53,056 Difference .... 4,73,107 9,51,213   Note :- The difference is on account of value difference between us and the parties which are treated as discount, rebate and settlement in our books. For example, if we issue a bill of Rs. 100/- to party and the party deducts Rs. 2/-on account of quality, then they give us declaration in form 27C for Rs. 98/-and we show Rs. 2/- as discount, rebate and settlement in our books. The figure of discount, rebate and settlement was Rs. 5,39,507/- for F.Y. 2005-06 & Rs. 13,65,304/- for F.Y. 2006-07 as per audited accounts which includes the above difference. As far as f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bility. More so, when the A.O. has also not found anything adverse in his remand report. In respect of retail sales for personal consumption of Rs. 3,53,056/-, the appellant produced copy of bills before me as well as the A.O. from which it was evident that the wood was sold as firewood and the individual amount of the bills was also very low. The submissions that the same were for personal consumption and hence not liable for TCS in view of definition of buyer in section 206C in which person purchasing for personal consumption is excluded are convincing and hence accepted. On the remaining amount, the appellant has paid TCS and proofs of payment have been furnished. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute regarding this. The net diffe....