Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1129 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTNon-collection of TCS on sale of scrap and interest charged u/s.206C(C) - Held that:- The expression “scrap” as defined under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 206C of the Act, clearly provides that scrap means waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of materials which is definitely not usable as such. In the facts of the present case, the rags, wipers or chindi are actually products manufactured by the assessee and are used as such by the buyers for the purpose of manufacturing other items and are not products which cannot be used as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear and other reasons. The articles manufactured by the respondent assessee, therefore, would not fall within the ambit of the expression “scrap” as envisaged in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 206C of the Act. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the rags, wipers or chindi sold by the appellant would not fall within the meaning of “scrap” so as to attract the provisions of section 206C of the Act making the assessee liable to deduct tax at source under the said provision. Violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rule by not giving opportunity to the AO after admitting evidences in the form of photographs, samples - Held that:- If the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the first appellate authority is in the nature of clinching evidence leaving no further room for any doubt or controversy, in such a case no useful purpose would be served by forwarding such evidence/material to the Assessing Officer to obtain his report and in such exceptional circumstances, the said requirement can be dispensed with. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the additional evidence was only in the nature of the photographs and samples of the articles manufactured by the assessee. In the opinion of this court, considering the nature of the additional evidence produced by the assessee no useful purpose would have been served by forwarding such evidence/material to the Assessing Officer to obtain his report as such evidence was in the nature of clinching evidence leading no further room for any doubt or controversy. Under the circumstances, the second question proposed by the appellant also does not merit acceptance.
|