TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of amount received by the appellant/service provider during the Financial Year 2015-16 and 2017-18 from the income tax returns filed by the appellant under Section 194H of Income Tax Act, 1961. Vide letter dated 30.08.2019, the appellant was required to file the supporting documents/financial records for the said period which were submitted by the appellant vide its letter dated 04.11.2019. On examination of those documents, department found that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.17,16,300/- during Financial Year 2015-16 Rs.15,37,300/- during Financial Year 2016- 17 and Rs.14,62,500/- during Financial Year 2017-18 against the sale of services alleging the said amount to be received as commission from various recipients. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lakhs. Because of the said exemption appellant has not taken the service tax registration. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported as 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC) (ii) R.K. Singh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Raipur reported as 2023 (5) TMI 721 - CESTAT New Delhi 4.1 Finally it is submitted that the show cause notice is barred by time as there is no evidence adduced by the department to prove the allegations of suppression and misstatement. On the contrary, appellant was under bona fide belief that there is no liability of tax. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai reported as 2023 (386) ELT 728 (Mad.) (ii) Hakim Singh Contractor Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Customs and Central Excise, Alwar vide Final Order No. 51645/2023 dated 16.11.2023 (Tri.-Delhi) (iii) Warsi Buildcon Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, New Delhi reported as (2024) 17 Centax 37 (Tri.-Del) With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the sides and perusing the records. 7. It is observed to be an apparent fact that the impugned demand was based on the data received from the income tax department in the form of income tax returns and Form 26 AS. Law has now been settled that the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....batement. The impugned demand has included the entire amount received by the appellant. These observations are sufficient to hold that the confirmation of demand is not sustainable. 9. Finally coming to the plea of limitation, it is observed that the show cause notice dated 14.09.2020 has proposed the demand for the period from April 2015 to June 2017. Apparently the show cause notice has proposed the demand for the period beyond the normal period. There is nothing on record to prove the alleged suppression or misstatement. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was entitled to abatement due to which his income was under exempted limit and accordingly he had not taken the service tax registration. Department h....