SHRI SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

ITA 57/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6141 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI
• Section: 6; 15

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.57/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, 167 SHIV VIHAR OPP., ROAD NO. 5, VKIA AREA JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: JPRK03868E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT POONAM RAI (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/05/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/05/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 13.11.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL.:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING ADDITION OF SALE AMOUNT OF RS. 42,73,83 6/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TCS AS GOODS SOLD IS OTHER THAN SCRAP, THEREFORE, TCS IS NOT APPLICABLE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING INTEREST OF RS. 26,026/- CHARGED BY INC OME TAX OFFICER. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR AN Y ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH THE REGISTRY. IT WAS AC CORDINGLY DECIDED TO HEAR THE ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 2 MATTER EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE MAINLY DEALS IN PURCHASE/SALE OF OLD/WASTE IRON AND STEEL ITEMS. A SPOT VERIFICATION REGARDING TDS/TCS COMPLIANCE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE REVENUE AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24/02/2014. ON PERUSAL OF THE TCS STATEMENT AND OTHER DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE F.Y 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD SCRAP AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,98,65,861/- AND ON SALE OF RS. 56,07,027/-, THE A SSESSEE HAS COLLECTED TCS AND ON SALE OF RS. 1,27,10,775/-, TCS HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED. 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DECLARATION/COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE SCRAP PURCHASERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 68,24,976/- AND AFTER GIVING CREDI T FOR THE SAME, ON THE BALANCE SALES OF RS. 58,85,800/-, THE DEMAND U/S 20 6C(6A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 58557/- AND INTEREST U/S 206C(7) AMOUNTING TO R S. 26026/- WAS RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TCS AND INTEREST LIABILITY THEREON. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE SOLD IRO N & STEEL WHICH ARE USABLE ASSETS AND NOT ARISING OUT OF ANY MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY AND THEREFORE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP AS GIVEN IN EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDI TIONAL DECLARATIONS FROM THE SCRAP PURCHASERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS . 16,11,964/- AND IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE, DECLARATION ARE NOT RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF RS. 16,11,964/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DECLARATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE BALANCE DEM AND OF RS. 42,73,836/- AND THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 26026/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 3 7. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E SCRAP WHICH THEY HAVE SOLD IN FORM OF IRON AND STEEL IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP, WE FIND THAT THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS VS. CIT-II, RAJKOT IN ITA NO. 391 & 392/RJT/2011 ORDER DATED 06 TH SEPT., 2013 REPORTED IN 37 TAXMANN.COM 37 AND A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY US RECENTL Y IN CASE OF RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 746-JP-2007 DATE D 17.05.2018 WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 16. NOW, COMING TO OTHER CONTENTIONS SO RAISED BY THE LD AR SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A MANUFACTURER BUT A TRADER IN SCRA P, THE SCRAP IS PRINCIPAL TRADED ITEM FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT A SCRAP WHICH IS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL WORKI NG OF MATERIALS AND THE BUYER IN THE RETAIL SALE IS NOT A BUYER AS DEFINE D IN SECTION 206C OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT ALL THESE CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL AND THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUC TS VS. CIT-II (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER (HEAD NOTES): SECTION 3 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT MANDATES LEVY OF DUTY ON ALL EXCISABLE GOODS (EXCLUDING GOODS PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED IN SPECIA L ECONOMIC ZONES) WHICH ARE PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED IN INDIA AS, AND AT THE RA TES, SET FORTH IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985. IT THEREFORE FOLLO WS THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE GOODS INCLUDING SCRAP WHICH ARE NOT MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED IN INDIA. IT IS IN THE CON TEXT OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION THAT THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL H AVE HELD, IN THE CONTEXT OF LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY, TH AT THE WASTE AND SCRAP NOT GENERATED FROM THE MANUFACT URE OF THE PRIME PRODUCT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO LEVY OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY IN THE HANDS OF NON MANUFACTURERS. ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 4 THIS CONTEXT IS COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THE INCOME- TAX ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE WASTE AND SCRAP MUST BE GENERA TED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FROM THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PRIME PRODUCT A S REQUIRED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE LEGISLATIONS CANNOT BE READ INTO THE INCOME- TAX ACT. SECTION 2 06C FASTENS LIABILITY ON A SELLER OF SCRAP FOR COLLECTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH A SELLER SHOULD HIMSELF GENER ATE SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS UNDE RTAKEN BY HIM. [PARA 33] IT WAS CONTENDED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 206C APPLIES TO SALE OF SCRAP WHICH IS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. THE AFORESAID SUBM ISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE, THE HEAD NOTE OF SECT ION 206C SHOWS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C ARE APPLICABLE TO BU SINESS OF TRADING, INTER ALIA , IN SCRAP. THE USE OF THE WORDS 'BUSINESS OF TRADING' IN THE S AID HEAD NOTE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 206C IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SA LE OF SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING UNDERT AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BUT COVERS SALE OF SCRAP IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SCRAP ALSO. TWO, SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 206C REQUIRES THE 'SELLER' T O COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE. THE TERM 'SELLER' IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (C) TO SECTION 206C ACCORDING TO WHICH THE TERM 'SELLER' MEANS 'THE CEN TRAL GOVERNMENT, A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY OR CORPORATION OR AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY OR UNDER A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT, OR ANY COMPANY OR FIRM OR CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ALSO INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL O R A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY WHOSE TOTAL SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM' EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMIT AS SPE CIFIED THEREIN. ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 5 EXPLANATION (C) TO SECTION 206C DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A SELLER OF S CRAP MUST HIMSELF GENERATE SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECH ANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. THEREFORE, SUCH A REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE READ IN SECTION 206C FOR ITS APPLICABILITY TO SALE OF SCRAP. THR EE, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SALE ON WHICH TAX IS REQU IRED TO BE COLLECTED AT SOURCE FROM THE BUYER IS, INTER ALIA, SCRAP, WHICH IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C TO MEAN WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MA NUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. IT DOES NOT FURTHER REQUIRE THAT THE SCRAP, IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C, SHOULD ALSO BE GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR M ECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. 'SCRAP FROM THE MANUF ACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS' MAY ARIS E AS A RESULT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR BY ANYONE ELSE. SIMILARLY, SCRAP MAY ALSO ARISE FRO M THE MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM MANUFACTURE. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, IT IS HELD THAT TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED AT SOURCE FROM THE BUYER, IN TERMS OF SECTION 206C, ON SALE OF, INTER ALIA , SCRAP BEING WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATER IALS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR BY ANYONE ELSE. A SELLER OF SCRAP IS NEITHER REQUIRED TO BE A MANUF ACTURER HIMSELF NOR THE SCOPE OF 'SCRAP', AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (B) , IS RESTRICTED TO SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS UNDERTAK EN BY THE SELLER HIMSELF. IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 206C IF THE PERSON SOUGHT TO BE FASTENED WITH LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 206C IS A SELLER OF SC RAP BEING WASTE AS WELL AS SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WO RKING OF MATERIALS PROVIDED ALL OTHER CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 6 SECTION 206C ARE ALSO SATISFIED. [PARA 34] IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLA RED THE GOODS IMPORTED BY HIM AS BRASS SCRAP BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. HE IS THEREFORE BOUND BY THA T DECLARATION. ONCE IT IS DECLARED AS WASTE AND SCR AP UNDER THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT IT IS IN TH E NATURE OF WASTE AND SCRAP, WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE DEFINITION OF 'SCRAP' UNDER EXPLANATION (B) IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE DEFINITION OF 'SCRAP' AS GIVEN IN THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, MATERIALS RECOVERED ON DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS, OLD MACHINES/FIXTURES/FITTINGS SOLD AS SCRAP, DISCARDED PACKING MATERIALS, ETC. , WOULD ALSO FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF 'SCRAP' AS DEFIN ED IN EXPLANATION (B) AS ALL OF THEM ARE ITEMS, WHICH ARE NO LONGER USEFUL AS SU CH, AND THEREFORE FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTUR E OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS, WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUC H. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. [PARA 35] IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FASTENED THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 206C WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD SCRAP WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR TWO PRINCIPAL REASONS. ONE, IT IS T HE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHO HAD DECLARED THAT THE MATERIALS SOLD BY HIM WAS IMP ORTED BY HIM AS SCRAP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE FACT S ADMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. ONCE THE ASSESSEE MAKES A DECLARATION TO THAT EFFEC T BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ACTS UPON THAT DECLARATION, HE IS PRECLUDED FROM PLEADING OTHERWISE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. SECTION 1 15 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS QUITE APPOSITE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES, NAMELY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THE ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 7 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF TH E AFORESAID DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES BEFORE FIXING THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNO T THEREFORE BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE MATERIAL IMPORTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 'SCRAP'. TWO, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE MATERIAL IMPORTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 'SCRAP' WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPL ANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PA RA 37] IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TI ON 206C REQUIRE A SELLER TO COLLECT THE TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE BUYER (AND FR OM NONE ELSE) ON SALE, INTER ALIA, OF SCRAP. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DEFINITI ON OF 'BUYER' AS GIVEN IN SUB- CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (AA) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 206C, WHICH DEFINE S A 'BUYER' AS 'A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WA Y OF AUCTION, TENDER, OR ANY OTHER MODE, GOODS OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN TH E TABLE IN SUB- SECTION (1) ' IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BUYER FROM WHOM TAX IS RE QUIRED TO BE COLLECTED AT SOURCE SHOULD B E ONE WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, T ENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE, GOODS OF THE SPECIFIED NATURE. PLAC ING RELIANCE ON THE INTERPRETATIVE TOOLS OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS AND EJUSD EM GENERIS , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PHRASE 'ANY OTHER MODE' IN THE EXPRE SSION 'A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MO DE ..' IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I) WOULD GET ITS MEANING FROM THE WORDS PRECEDING IT, NAMELY, 'BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER' AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID PHRASE, N AMELY, 'ANY OTHER MODE ' WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY AND IN THE SAME SENSE AS SOMETHING AKIN TO AUCTION OR TENDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SALE OF SCRAP IN RETA IL SALE/TRADE COULD NOT BE ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 8 CONSTRUED AS SALE BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR MODE AND, T HEREFORE, SUCH A PURCHASER OF SCRAP IN RETAIL SALE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (AA)(I) TO SECTION 206C. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SCR AP IN RETAIL TRADE AND NOT BY WAY OF AUCTION OR TENDER OR ANY S IMILAR MODE OR MODE AKIN TO AUCTION OR TENDER AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLE CT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THEM UNDER SECTION 206C AS SUCH PURCHASERS IN RETAIL TRA DE WERE NOT BUYERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (AA)(I) TO SECTION 206C. [PARA 38] THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DOCTRINE OF 'NOSCITUR A SOCIIS ' IS THAT HE WHO CANNOT BE KNOWN FROM HIMSELF MAY BE KNOWN FROM HIS ASSOCIATES. UNDER THE SAID DOCTRINE, THE MEANING OF QUESTIONABLE OR DOUBT FUL WORDS OR PHRASES IN A STATUTE MAY BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE MEANING OF OTHER WORDS OR PHRASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. UNDER 'EJUSDEM GENERIS ' CANON OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WHERE GENERAL WORDS FOLLOW THE ENUMERATION OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF THINGS, THE GENERAL WORDS WILL BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING O NLY TO THINGS OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS AS THOSE ENUMERATED. THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE HOWEVE R DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT THE GENERAL PROVISION BE LIMITED IN IT S SCOPE TO THE IDENTICAL THINGS SPECIALLY NAMED. NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN THE CONTEXT MANIFES TS A CONTRARY INTENTION. FOR THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE TO APPLY, THE SPECIFIC WORDS MUST CONSTITUTE A CATEGORY, CLASS OR GENUS, THEN ONLY THINGS WHICH BE LONG TO THAT CATEGORY, CLASS OR GENUS FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL WORDS'. [PAR A 39] THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE IS NOT A RULE OF LAW BUT IS MERELY A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION TO AID THE COURTS TO FIND OUT THE TRUE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. LIKE ALL OTHER LINGUISTIC CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION, T HE EJUSDEM GENERIS PRINCIPLE ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 9 APPLIES ONLY WHEN A CONTRARY INTENTION DOES NOT APPEAR OR MEANING OF QUESTIONABLE OR DOUBTFUL WORDS OR PHRASES IN A STAT UTE IS REQUIRED TO BE ASCERTAINED. IF A GIVEN PROVISION IS PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND T HE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS CLEAR, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO CALL IN AID THAT RUL E. SIMILARLY, A PHRASE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED EJUSDEM GENERIS UNLESS IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF MEANING ANALOGOUS TO THE PRECEDING WORDS. [PARA 41] AS ALREADY STATED EARLIER, SECTION 206C SEEKS TO PR EVENT MISCHIEF, I.E. , EVASION OF TAXES IN CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES. THE WORDS DEFINING A BUYER AS 'A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE ..' IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I) ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE IN THEIR MEANING AND CONTENT. THE BUYER IS ONE WHO OBTAINS SPECIFIED GOODS 'IN AN Y SALE' WHICH COULD BE BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER 'OR ANY OTHER MODE'. THE USE OF THE WORD 'OR' IN THE AFORESAID EXPRESSIO N SHOWS THAT ALL THE THREE PHR ASES (NAMELY, AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE) AR E INTENDED TO CARRY INDEPENDENT MEANING WITHOUT BEING CONTROLLED BY EAC H OTHER. THE USE OF THE WORDS 'ANY OTHER MODE' IN THE SAID EXPRESSION FURTH ER SHOWS THAT THE MODE OF SALE NEED NOT BE BY WAY OF AUCTIO N OR TENDER ALONE BUT COULD BE BY ANY OTHER MODE. THE WORDS 'ANY OTHER MODE' ARE WORDS OF WIDE AMPLIT UDE AND, THEREFORE, COVER ALL POSSIBLE MODES OF SALES IN ADDITION TO SP ECIFIC MODES OF SALES BY WAY OF AUCTION OR TENDER. HENCE, THEY CANNOT BE CONSTRU ED EJUSDEM GENERIS OR AS REFERRING TO SIMILAR SALES AS THOSE BY WAY OF AUCTI ON OR TENDER. THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN CAUTIOUS AND THOROUGH- GOING ENOUGH TO BAR ALL AVENUES OF ESCAPE BY USING THE WORDS 'OR ANY OTHER MODE'. THESE WORDS (I.E. , 'ANY OTHER MODE') ARE NOT WORDS OF LIMITATION BUT OF EXTENSION SO AS TO COVER ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 10 ALL POSSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH A PERSON (I.E ., A BUYER) COULD OBTAIN SPECIFIED GOODS IN SALE. THE WORDS 'OR ANY OTHER MODE' IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I ) IN SECTION 206C ARE INTENDED TO COVER ALL OTHER MOD ES OF SALES WHICH MAY NOT COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PRECEDING WORDS, NAMELY, AUCTION OR TENDER. HENCE, FAR FROM USING THOSE WORDS (I.E., 'ANY OTHER MODE') EJUSDEM GENERIS WITH THE PRECEDING WORDS OF THE EXPLANATION (AA)(I), THE LEG ISLATURE HAS USED TH OSE WORDS IN AN ALL INCLUSIVE SENSE. NO DECIDED CASE OF ANY COURT HOLDING THAT THE WORDS 'OR ANY OTHER MODE' HAVE EVER BEEN USED IN THE SENSE CONTENDED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED, MI SCHIEF SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED, THE LANGUAGE USED IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I) OF SECTION 206C, AND THE CLARITY WITH WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED, THERE IS NO ROOM TO CONSTRUE THE WORDS 'OR ANY OTHER MODE' EJUSDEM G ENERIS THE PRECEDING WORDS IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I). THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT A PERSON WHO OBTAINS SPEC IFIED GOODS IN RETAIL SALE OR BY ANY OTHER MODE OF SALE WOULD ALSO BE A BUYER WIT HIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (AA)(I) AS SUCH SALE WOULD FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF SALE BY 'ANY OTHER MODE'. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. [PARA 41] 8. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE CONTENTION SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER I T IS NOTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE CREDIT IN RESP ECT OF THE SCRAP PURCHASERS WHO HAVE PROVIDED THE NECESSARY DECLARATION REGARDI NG RECEIPT OF SUCH ITEMS AND THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACC OUNT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE TAXES HAVE BEEN DULY PAID ON THEM. THERE IS NOTHING ITA NO. 57/JP/2018 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITO, JAIPUR 11 ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF ANY DECLARATIONS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED AND NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN LIGHT OF TH E SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS HEREB Y CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/05/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 28/05/2018 *GANESH KR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT - SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS-1, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 57/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.