TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....w.s. 206C(1) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to Collect Tax at Source relating to the Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. A.S. Didwani Scrap Traders and engaged in the business of Trading in Scrap as per Audit Report filed by the assessee. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee has sold metal scrap of Rs. 4,90,30,865/- to various parties. However the assessee failed to Tax Collect at Source (TCS) at 1% on such payment u/s. 206C of the Act. Accordingly, proceeding u/s. 206C(6A) and 206C(7) were initiated and show cause notice dated 27-06-2017 was issued to the assessee as to why TCS @ 1% u/s. 206C(6A) along with interest u/s. 206C(7) sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the same, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the following Grounds of Appeal. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the demand of Rs. 4,90,309/- raised under section 206C being 1% TCS considering the sale of CRC Sheet as scrap, such demand is requested to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the imposition of interest of Rs. 3,7,538/- under section 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such demand is requested to be deleted. 4.1. The assessee also filed Additional Ground of Appeal: 1. The learned AO erred in passing the order under section 206C(1) r.w.s. 206C(1) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after limitation period and learned CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V. ITO, TDS 14 taxmann.com 94 : 48 SOT 83: 143 TTJ 509 3 Jaipur ITAT Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. V. ACIT (TDS) 73 taxmann.com 236 4 Surat ITAT shree Mahuva Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. V. ITO, TDS-4 99 taxmann.com 328 5 Gujarat High Court CIT (TDS) V. Priya Blue Industries (P.) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 206: 237 Taxman 1: 381 ITR 210 : 286 CTR 210 6 Gujarat High Court PCIT (TDS) V. Safari Fine Clothing (P.) Ltd. 89 taxmann.com 129 : 253 Taxman 198 7 Ahmedabad ITAT Dhasawala Traders V. ITO 48 CCH 0271 : 161 ITD 0142 8 Madras High Court CIT V. Adisankara Spnning Mills (P.) Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 273 : 226 Taxmann 44 : 362 ITR 233 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, loss that may be caused to the revenue is only to the tune of interest of four months on delayed payment of tax. Not only that when the declaration about this is made in the return, it comes within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer even if the TDS is not deducted. Therefore, we are of the view that the period of four years is reasonable period and we concur with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. It is true that the Court cannot legislate the Act, however, the Assessing Officer also cannot be given unfettered powers, which he can exercise even beyond the reasonable period of four years. Therefore, in our view, period of four years is just and proper and the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve, it is clear that the proceedings under s. 201/ 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, can be initiated only within three years from the end of the assessment year or within four years from the end of the relevant financial year. 6. In the present case, we are concerned with the financial year 2001-02 or the asst. yr. 2002-03. The proceedings under ss. 201/201(1A) were admittedly initiated beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as also beyond the period of four years from the end of the financial year. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly concluded that the proceedings were beyond time. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals are dismissed." 6.3. In the case of....