Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Vasantbhai Kataria
[Citation -2017-LL-1129-15]

Citation 2017-LL-1129-15
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)
Respondent Name Vasantbhai Kataria
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/11/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law • sale of scrap • brass scrap • tax collected at source • imposition of penalty
Bot Summary: In this case the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act wherein it was recorded that as per the information received from ITO We-3(1) Jamnagar, the assessee had not collected TCS on sale of brass scrap of Rs.23,14,72,676/- as per the provisions of section 206C(1). The assessee submitted his explanation, which did not find favour with the Assessing Officer, who recorded that the assessee had not furnished Form No.27C to the respective Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and concluded that the assessee was liable for penalty under section 206C(6) and interest under section 206C(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, who noted that from the paper-book submitted by the assessee it could be seen that the assessee had submitted the declaration in Form No.27C to the office of the Principal CIT, may be late. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which recorded that in his findings the Commissioner had not mentioned the relevant details of submitting of Form No.27 by the assessee before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Considering the fact that the information on record was incomplete and did not fully demonstrate the facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify and examine the facts of the case of the assessee and decide the same in accordance with the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Siyaram Metal Udyog Ltd., 71 taxmann.com 204. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the court is not inclined to entertain the appeal, the Assessing Officer may be directed to carry out the verification as regards the genuineness of Form No.27C which have been submitted by the assessee after a delay of about four years from the end of the relevant financial year. As regards the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, needless to state that it is always open for the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of Form No.27C submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment.


O/TAXAP/951/2017 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 951 of 2017 COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)....Appellant(s) Versus SHREE VASANTBHAI KATARIA....Opponent(s) Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 29/11/2017 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ), appellant revenue has challenged order dated 5.7.2017 made by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in ITA No.262/Rjt/2016 by proposing following question, stated to be substantial question of law:- Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restoring issue relating to section 206C(6) and section 206C(7) to Assessing Officer, despite fact that assessee had not collected TCS on sale of brass scrap and despite non-furnishing of Form 27C to Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 16 10:02:45 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/951/2017 ORDER respective Commissioner? 2. assessment year is 2013-14. In this case Assessing Officer passed order under section 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of Act wherein it was recorded that as per information received from ITO We-3(1) Jamnagar, assessee had not collected TCS on sale of brass scrap of Rs.23,14,72,676/- as per provisions of section 206C(1). assessee submitted his explanation, which did not find favour with Assessing Officer, who recorded that assessee had not furnished Form No.27C to respective Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and concluded that assessee was liable for penalty under section 206C(6) and interest under section 206C(7) of Act. 3. assessee carried matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who noted that from paper-book submitted by assessee it could be seen that assessee had submitted declaration in Form No.27C to office of Principal CIT, may be late. According to Commissioner (Appeals), mere late submission of forms to office of CIT would not make assessee liable for TCS. Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon decision of Tribunal in case of K.P.G. Enterprise v. Income Tax Officer rendered in ITA No.384/Ahd/2012 wherein it was held that once declaration referred to in section 206C(1A) of Act was received by assessee, thereafter assessee could not legally collect tax at source from buyers and consequently such assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for non-collection of TCS from such buyer and held that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 16 10:02:45 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/951/2017 ORDER for non-collection of TCS on sale of scrap where Form No.27C was obtained by it, and, accordingly, allowed ground of appeal. 4. revenue carried matter in appeal before Tribunal, which recorded that in his findings Commissioner (Appeals) had not mentioned relevant details of submitting of Form No.27 by assessee before Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Considering fact that information on record was incomplete and did not fully demonstrate facts, Tribunal restored matter to Assessing Officer to verify and examine facts of case of assessee and decide same in accordance with principles laid down by jurisdictional High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P) Ltd., (2016) 71 taxmann.com 204 (Guj.). Being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal. 5. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for appellant submitted that if court is not inclined to entertain appeal, Assessing Officer may be directed to carry out verification as regards genuineness of Form No.27C which have been submitted by assessee after delay of about four years from end of relevant financial year. 6. Having regard to fact that Tribunal has merely restored matter to Assessing Officer as information on record was incomplete and did not fully demonstrate facts, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by Tribunal gives rise to any question of law, much less, substantial question of law, warranting interference. Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 16 10:02:45 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/951/2017 ORDER 7. As regards request made by learned counsel for appellant, needless to state that it is always open for Assessing Officer to verify genuineness of Form No.27C submitted by assessee at time of assessment. 8. In absence of any question of law, appeal fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) (A. S. SUPEHIA, J.) zgs Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 16 10:02:45 IST 2017 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Vasantbhai Kataria
Report Error