OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR MINING, SOUTH BASTAR, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 471/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the District Mining Officer, Dantewada, challenging the orders related to the collection of Tax Collected at Source (TCS) on certain fees and contributions under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated due to the commonality of facts and issues across the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The primary contention was whether the appellant was liable to collect TCS on compounding fees for illegal transportation and on contributions to the District Mining Fund (DMF). The Tribunal referenced a prior decision in a similar case (District Mining Officer, Bemetara) and upheld the demands, confirming the legal obligations under the specified sections of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469784 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: G.S. AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2021-22 & 2020-21 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Office of the Collector Mining, New Collectorate Building, Anwarabhata, P.O. Dantewada, South Baster, TAN: JBPO00458D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri G.S. Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 2 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.08.2024, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec.206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 13.01.2023 for the assessment year 2021-22 & 2020-21. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeals are common, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.471/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2021-22, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not considering the material available with him on Written Submission & Paper Book, Statement of facts & Grounds of appeal. Prayed that the Appellant is a Department of Chhattisgarh Government and is a regulatory authority for mining in the district. Prayed that there is no default in making TCS u/s. 206C(1C), the demand kindly be cancelled. 2) That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the order of learned AO that appellant was liable to make TCS on compounding fees received for illegal transportation of Rs.21,628/- comprising of Rs.17,030/- towards Short TCS and Rs.4,598/- towards interest. Prayed that compounding fees is not Royalty and 3 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 there was no liability to make TCS u/s 206C(1 C) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Above demand be cancelled. Ld. CIT (A) erred in mentioning figures of Assessment Year 2022-23 erroneously. 3) That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the order of learned AO that appellant was liable to make TCS on compounding fees received for illegal mining & storage amounting to Rs.4,872/- comprising of Rs.3,836/- towards Short TCS and Rs.1,036/- towards interest. Prayed that compounding fees is not Royalty and there was no liability to make TCS u/s 206C(1C) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Above demand be cancelled. Ld. CIT (A) erred in mentioning figures of Assessment Year 2022-23 erroneously. 4) That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing AO to examine whether the appellant received contribution towards DMF by following the common order passed by Hon'ble ITAT Raipur Bench dated 21/07/2023 wherein the lead case was DMO, Bemetara and there were other five Mining Offices in Chhattisgarh & that direction for aforesaid examination by Hon'ble ITAT was for appeals in case of DMO Bemetara and in other cases of DMO, Hon'ble ITAT directed that its order will apply Mutatis Mutandis. That the appellant was not authorized u/s 9 of MMDR Act, 1957 to receive contribution towards DMF or NMET from lease holders nor he has received such contribution. The facts of DMO, Bemetara are different from the facts of appellant's case and as per direction of Hon'ble ITAT, the common order of Hon'ble ITAT should apply \"Mutatis Mutandis\" and therefore the direction of the U. CIT(A) to AO to verify whether the appellant received contribution towards DMF or NMET is not applicable to appellant and above direction is promoting litigation. Prayed to set aside the above direction of Ld. CIT(A).” 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act, dated 13.01.2023 had, inter alia, held viz. (i) the assessee was to be held as being default for not collecting tax at source (TCS) a/w. interest on illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal 4 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 transportation u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act; and (ii) for its failure to deduct tax at source in respect of contribution towards District Mining Fund (DMF). Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act, dated 13.01.2023 raised a demand of Rs.5,79,001/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) after taking cognizance of the fact that the issues involved in the present appeal were squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023, therefore, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O upheld the same. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “6. Decision: 6.1 In grounds No. 1, 2, 3 & 4, the appellant has contended the order is bad in law, arbitrary and based on borrowed opinion. The AO has passed the order after duly complying the procedure and the order of the AO is as per law. The contention of the appellant, that the AO follow order of the earlier year is also without any basis. When the order was already passed in earlier years in the case of the appellant and facts of the year under consideration remain the same as for the earlier year, there is no reason for the AO to deviate from findings of the earlier year unless there is any change in law or new facts and evidences are brought on record which is not a case here. Hence, the order of the AO is as per law in grounds No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are dismissed. 6.2 Ground No. 5 of the appellant is on TCS on illegal mining, storage and transportation and ground No. 6 is on TCS on DMF. These grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dealt in the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional 5 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 ITAT, Raipur, which is binding on the first Appellate Authority. Hence, following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur, the various issues raised by the appellant are adjudicated as discussed in subsequent paras. 6.3 As held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur in the above referred decision, the appellant was required to collect tax at source on illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal transportation and by not complying the same, the appellant violated provisions of sec.206C(1C) r.w.s.206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the order of the A.O. on the issue is confirmed and the demand raised by the A.O. on short collection of TCS and interest thereon u/s.206C(1C) r.w.s. 206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act in respect of illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal transportation is confirmed and ground No. 5 raised by the appellant on this issue is dismissed. 6.4 As regards collection of tax at source on amount collected for District Mining Fund (DMF), as per the above referred order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur, the A.O is directed to verify as to whether the appellant was in receipt of contributions towards DMF from the leaseholders; or the amounts were paid by the respective lease holders directly to the DMF. In case the lease holders were directly making payments to DMF, there was no obligation on the appellant to collect tax at source (TCS) on the contributions made by the lease holders to DMF. However, if the appellant was in receipt of contributions towards DMF from the lease holders, the appellant was liable to collect tax at source on these amounts. 6.4.1 Hence, wherever the lease holders had directly made payment to the District Mining Fund, the demand raised by the A.O. including interest thereon uls.206C(1 C) r.w.s. 206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act is deleted. 6.4.2 However, wherever the appellant had received contribution from the lease holders towards the District Mining Fund, the demand raised by the A.O. including interest thereon u/s.206C(1C) r.w.s.206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act is confirmed. 6.4.3 The A.O. is directed to verify as to whether the appellant was in receipt 2,1 of contributions towards DMF from the leaseholders; or the amounts were paid by the respective lease holders directly to the DMF and give effect to the directions as per para 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 above. Hence, ground no. 6 of appeal is adjudicated, subject to the directions as above. 6 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 6.5 In ground No. 7 the appellant has contested initiation of penalty proceeding. As the penalty is initiated and not levied, the ground is pre-matured and hence dismissed. 6.6 Ground No. 8 is general in nature in which the appellant has requested to delete the demand raised. The specific grounds of appeal have been adjudicated as above. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities, as well as considered the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023. 7. Shri G.S. Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the issues involved in the present appeal are squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023. The Ld. AR had placed on our record copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case (supra). 7 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) submitted that both the issues involved in the present appeal, viz. (i) the assessee’s default in not collecting tax at source (TCS) a/w. interest on illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal transportation u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act; and (ii) for its failure to deduct tax at source in respect of contribution towards District Mining Fund (DMF), had been deliberated at length by the ITAT, Raipur while disposing of the appeals in the cases of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023, therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly followed the same and dismissed the appeal. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & Ors, ITA No.8/RPR/2023 & 37 others, dated 21.07.2023. As the CIT(Appeals) had followed the view taken by the Tribunal qua the identical issues, therefore, finding no infirmity in the same, we uphold his order. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.471/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2021-22 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 8 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 ITA No.472/RPR/2024 A.Y.2020-21 11. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeal remains the same as were there before us in ITA No.471/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2021-22, therefore, our findings recorded while disposing of the appeal in ITA No.471/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2021-22 shall mutatis mutandis apply for disposing off the captioned appeal, i.e. ITA No.472/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2020-21. Accordingly, we dispose off the captioned appeal on the same terms as were recorded by us while adjudicating the respective issues in ITA No.471/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2021-22. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.472/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2020-21 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. Resultantly, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 27th day of November, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 27th November, 2024. ***SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 9 District Mining Officer, Dantewada Vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur ITA Nos. 471 & 472/RPR/2024 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "