2025 (8) TMI 1612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner is a Clearing agent/Customs House Agent and they are also filing paying the Income Tax and filing Income Tax returns regularly. The Customs Freight Station raises the Bill in the name of the importer/customer straightaway for its services. The imported goods by customer are cleared by petitioner straightaway for its services. The imported goods by customer are cleared by petitioner by remitting the applicable "customs duty." The petitioner raises the bill on the importer/customer by bifurcating the taxable and non taxable amount received from the importer/Customer. The Income tax is paid on the income earned and not on the "reimbursable expenses" in which no profit is earned. (ii) The importer/customer settles the entire ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....celess Appeal Centre and thereafter the National Faceless Appeal Centre vide communications dated 25/10/2022, 11/06/2024 and 10/03/2025 had repeatedly requested for documents which were also sent to them without fail. In the meantime, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 201/201A of the Act and passed an order dated 31.03.2023 raising the demand of TDS @ 2% on Rs.4,06,10,263/- along with interest. (v) Thereafter, the revision petition was filed under Section 264 of the Act before the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2025 and the same was dismissed. The order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 31.03.2023 and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2025 are impugned in this writ petition. 3.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ient. Though a specific plea has been taken by the petitioner that they are not liable to pay TDS, no supporting documents have been produced by the petitioner either before the assessing authority or before the revisional authority to that effect, which is evident from paragraph 5 of the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2025. Though the petitioner has stated that they have produced all the document before the authorities concerned, the same was not sufficient to substantiate its case. 8. Under such circumstances, in the interest of justice and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the authorities concerned and direct the pet....