M/s. Singhal Steels, Vadodara V. The ITO, TDS-2, Vadodara

ITA 185/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2790 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KUMAR
• Keywords: Tax effect; TDS
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

, ‘D’ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 185/Ahd/2021 ( Assess ment Ye ar : 2014-15) M / s. Si ng h al St ee l s 37 6, GI D C r an d, O pp osi te S. M . I nd us tr ie s, Ma kar pu ra , Va do da ra - 39 00 10 / V s . In co me T ax Of fi ce r TD S- 2, Aa ya k ar B ha va n, R ace Co ur se Ci rc le, V ad oda ra - 39 00 07 यी ल सं./ ीआ आर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A X ZP S 9 2 5 7 P (अपील Appellant) . . ( य / Respondent) अपील र स /Appellant by : No ne य क र स / Respondent by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. स क र D a t e o f H e a r i n g 02/05/2022 !"# क र /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 09/05/2022 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-2 (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A), Vadodara-2/10455/2015-16 dated 18.08.2020 arising in the assessment order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2014-15. ITA No. 185/Ahd/2021 [M/s. Singhal Steels Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating appeal ex-parte, without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. N.A. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in dismissing the appeal and upholding the levy of tax collected at source amounting to Rs.1,48,112/-though order was passed u/s 206C(6A) and not u/s 206C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Rs.1,48,112/- 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in law and on facts in upholding charging of interest amounting to Rs.46,579/- u/s 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Rs.46,579/- (interest) 4. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal. Total Tax Effect Rs.1,95,214/-” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of MS Scrap (Ferrous & Non Ferrous Scrap). The survey u/s 133A(2A) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 12.01.2016. During the course of survey, AO noticed that no TCS was collected on the MS Scrap Sale of Rs.1,48,11,187/- which was pertaining to the period April 13 to October 13. Therefore, TCS liability of Rs.1,48,112/- @1% was determined to be payable by the assessee. Therefore, the ITO, TDS-2, Baroda vide letter No/BRD/ITO/TDS-2/Show Cause/2015-16 dated 22.01.2016, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why order u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the IT Act, 1961 should not be passed in his case for failure to collect TCS of Rs.1,48,112/- for the FY 2013-14. The deductor/collector, vide his reply dated 01.02.2016 stated that "the said section is not applicable to him as he is a trader". The ITO, TDS-2, Baroda is of the opinion that the TCS should have been collected by the assessee on the behalf of Government and same should have been ITA No. 185/Ahd/2021 [M/s. Singhal Steels Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - deposited in the Government Account within the time period as stipulated/mandated in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee failed to fulfill his TCS liability and there is TCS default in the case of the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, declared to be an 'appellant is default' in respect of amount of Rs. 1,95,214/-. The deductor assessee was directed to pay the total tax liability u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) of Rs.1,95,214/-(Tax of Rs. 1,48,112 + Interest of Rs. 46,579). 4. In this case, learned CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order despite the fact that several opportunities of being heard to be given to the assessee but because of some reasons, assessee could not file the required details before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside this matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) after giving opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs.1000/- is imposed as assessee has vested precious time of the learned CIT(A). The assessee has failed to file the relevant details before the CIT(A) on time. Therefore, we impose a cost of Rs.1000/- and same shall be deposited with the Department within 60 days of the receipt of the order and thereafter, the learned CIT(A) shall proceed with the appeal and after filing of the submission by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) shall decide the matter as per law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- Sd/- ( WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 09/05/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA This Order pronounced in Open Court on 09/05/2022 ITA No. 185/Ahd/2021 [M/s. Singhal Steels Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - ेश ! " #े" / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- $. र / Revenue 2. आ दक / Assessee '. सं(ं)* आयकर आय + / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय + - अपील / CIT (A) .. / 0 1ीय 2 2 )*3 आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 1 78 9 ल / Guard file. By order/आद श स 3 उप/स4 यक पं ीक र आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द ।