TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....06.2023 which is not considered by ld. CIT (A). 2. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO determining the liability of Rs. 3,17,777/- u/s 206C r.w.s. 201(1)/201(1A) even when assessee has furnished declaration in Form No. 27C. He has further erred in not providing opportunity to submit certificate from accountant in Form No. 27BA while upholding the order of AO. 3. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in imposing TDS liability of Rs. 8,140/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 2,523/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 81,399/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. 4. The applicant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 5. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. ITA NO. 592/JP/2023 AY 2017-18 : 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO determining the liability of Rs. 1,30,679/- u/s 206C r.w.s. 201(1)/201(1A) even when assessee has furnished declaration in Form No. 27C. He has further erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l on the same date by stating that assessee has not filed any submission in support of ground of appeal and thus the appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that in response to the notices issued, assessee has filed the written submission along with Form No.27C on 08.06.2023, copy of acknowledgment is placed on record, but the NFAC passed the order without considering the same. Further, when the NFAC is deciding the appeals for AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 on the same date and the facts for all the 3 years are common, it is incorrect on part of NFAC to state that the conduct of assessee shows that assessee is no more interested in pursuing the appeal though at the same time deciding the issue on merit. In view of above, it is prayed that the appeal of assessee, in the interest of justice, be decided on merit instead of setting aside the appeal to ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 5. We have the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the revenue authorities. We note that assessee has filed written submission on 08.06.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pute that assessee has belatedly collected the declaration in Form No.27C and has filed the same before ITO(TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) can be fastened on the assessee. For this, reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 233 (Mad.) (HC) In this case, the High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under:- "As far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has noted in paragraph 3 that the assessee had obtained Form 27C from the buyers of the cotton waste. In the course of the appellate proceedings, the same was also filed before the assessing authority by applying the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled in a prescribed format and there was no dispute about the genuineness of such declaration, mere minor delay in filing the said declaration would not defeat the very claim. The Tribunal therefore, viewed such delay liberally and in essence held that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declaration." Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO, TDS 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained at the very same moment when a sale is affected. A reading of sub section (1B) clearly brings out this since obligation of the assessee to file a copy of the declaration arises only when the declaration is furnished to him by the buyer. The point of reference is furnishing of declaration by the buyer and not the month or date on which sale is affected by the assessee. Even if it is considered that there is a breach on the part of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration in Form 27C. In view thereof, the ground is required to be allowed. In the light of above, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the AO with direction to verify whether the declaration has been filed by the assessee in the requisite form and what will be the effect of filing of this declaration on the calculation of the TCS under s. 206C of the Act. It is, however, again clarified that the delay in filing the declaration shall not be a ground to the AO to deny the benefit of the declaration to the assessee. In view thereof, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes only. G.K. Traders Vs. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 72 (Rajkot) (Trib.) The relevant Para 5 of the order reads as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Gujarat High Court), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Form 27C comprising of the buyer's declaration to the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the buyer has to be construed as mandatory only support the case of assessee in as much as assessee has filed Form No.27C to ITO(TDS). The SLP granted against Gujarat High Court decision in case of Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. would not mean that decision of High Court is overruled. Hence, in view of the decision referred in Para 3 above, ITO(TDS) be directed not to levy tax u/s 206C(1) and interest u/s 206C(7). It is submitted that first proviso to section 206C(6A) provides that seller should not be deemed to be in assessee in default in respect of tax if buyer has furnished the return u/s 139, has taken into account such income for computing his total income, has paid the due taxes and furnishes the certificate in Form No.27BA. This legal position has been accepted by NFAC, however, it has not provided any time to the assessee to obtain Form No.27BA from the accountant and to furnish the same to ITO(TDS). Therefore, the assessee be given an opportunity to furnish Form No.27BA to ITO(TDS). In view of above, demand raised u/s 206C(1)/ 206C(7) be directed to be deleted. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. We have the ....