2015 (11) TMI 1743 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 206(C)(1) - time limit to pass the order - reasonable time - Held that - There is no time limit prescribed for section 206C and since there is no specific time limit under section 206C, a reasonable time limit is to be considered for the purpose of passing order u/s 206C - action must be initiated within period of 4 years, where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 in view of case COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 2008 (4) TMI 182 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Such a time limit is not to be considered with respect to date of knowledge but with respect to the period to which the lapse pertains - thus impugned order is held to be time barred.

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the order passed under section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of steel plates and materials from ship recycling process as "scrap" under section 206C of the Act.
3. Treatment of the appellant as "Assessee in default" under section 206C(1) r.w.s. 206C(6), 206C(6A), and 206C(7) of the Act.
4. Liability of the appellant to collect tax at source on the sale of alleged scrap.
5. Applicability of tax collection at source under section 206C(1) of the Act on a specific amount.
6. Whether the purchasers' tax payments exempt the appellant from being treated as an assessee in default.
7. Initiation of penalty under section 271CA of the Act.
8. Allegations of lower authorities passing orders without proper appreciation of facts and ignoring submissions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of the Order
The appellant challenged the timeliness of the order passed under section 206C of the Act. The CIT(A) justified the order's timing within six years after a survey, considering it reasonable. However, the ITAT Ahmedabad referred to the absence of a prescribed limitation period for section 206C orders. Citing a relevant case law, the tribunal deemed the order as time-barred, emphasizing the need for a reasonable time limit for such orders. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the order being time-barred.

Issue 2: Classification of Materials as "Scrap"
The dispute involved the classification of steel plates and materials from ship recycling as "scrap" under section 206C. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, considering the materials as scrap. However, the ITAT Ahmedabad did not delve into this issue due to the time-barred nature of the order, rendering a detailed analysis unnecessary.

Issue 3: Assessee in Default Status
The CIT(A) confirmed the appellant's categorization as an "Assessee in default" under various sections of the Act, which the ITAT Ahmedabad did not address due to the primary focus on the timeliness of the order.

Issue 4: Liability to Collect Tax at Source
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision regarding the appellant's liability to collect tax at source on the sale of alleged scrap. However, the ITAT Ahmedabad did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue due to the time-barred nature of the order.

Issue 5: Applicability of Tax Collection at Source
The appellant argued against the applicability of tax collection at source under section 206C(1) on a specific amount. The ITAT Ahmedabad did not delve into this issue due to the primary focus on the timeliness of the order.

Issue 6: Purchasers' Tax Payments
The appellant contended that purchasers' tax payments exempted them from being treated as an assessee in default. However, the ITAT Ahmedabad did not address this issue in detail due to the time-barred nature of the order.

Issue 7: Penalty Initiation
The CIT(A) confirmed the initiation of a penalty under section 271CA, which the ITAT Ahmedabad did not analyze extensively due to the focus on the timeliness of the order.

Issue 8: Alleged Breach of Law and Natural Justice
The appellant alleged that the lower authorities passed orders without proper appreciation of facts and submissions. The ITAT Ahmedabad did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue due to the primary focus on the timeliness of the order.

← Previous Next →