TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri S.L. Chandel (Addl. CIT) For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. Both the appeals filed by the revenue emanates from the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur dated 28/10/2016 for the A.Ys. 2011- 12 2012-13, wherein the revenue has taken common effective grounds of appeals in both the appeals, which are as under: i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in considering the assessee s claim in respect of declaration in Form 27C which was required to be received at the time of purchase of goods by buyer and copy of declaration should be deposited by responsible person with competent authority on the specified date as required by Rule 37C and the assessee failed to comply with such legal requirement. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by giving specific direction on account of demand raised U/s 206C(7) for charging interest violates the provision of Section 206C(7) of the Act. 2. Both the appeals of the revenue are being hearing together, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said scrap. As the said material/goods come from the breaking of the ship, these goods were sold to the manufacturer/rerolling mills, as scrap therefore, the goods (scrap) sold by the assessee were not usable as such and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct TCS from the buyer, in view thereof, the ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is decided against the assessee. 3.4 Respectfully following the order of ITAT, Jaipur bench in the case of the assessee, it is held that ship-breaking scrap sold by the assessee is covered under the definition of scrap as per Explanation to sec.206C. This ground of appeal is thus dismissed. 3.5 The above findings of ITAT, Jaipur bench also covers the contention of the assessee as raised in ground no. 1(c) that apart from the ship-breaking scrap, the assessee has also sold various other material such as MS Bar, Channel, M.S. Ingot, Pig Iron, Silicon manganese, old and used plates etc. which are usable as such and hence do not fall under the definition of scrap. The assessee has claimed that sale of plates to certain parties accordingly would not fall under scrap and hence accordingly the relatable interest of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. In view thereof, the Ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only 4.1 Respectfully following the directions of ITAT in the assessee s own case, the AO is directed to verify whether declarations in Form 27C as mandated by sec. 206C(1A), have been filed in the requisite form and to give credit thereof if so filed and thereby recompute the liability u/s 206C(6A) and 206C(7). 5. Ground no. 1(d) is against considering the assessee in default in view of certificates filed in Form 27BA as per Proviso to sec. 206C(6A) stating that the buyer has filed Return of income taking into consideration the amount of purchase price of goods for computing his income and has paid taxes thereon. It is contended by the assessee that the AO has accepted such certificates and has not created liability u/s 206C(6A) in respect of all parties wherein the said certificates were given, except in one case viz. Sharma Steel Rolling Mills. The AO is directed to verify the said case and to delete the liability u/s 206C(6A) in respect of this party if certificate in Form no. 27BA has been furnished in accordance with Proviso to sec. 206C(6A). Subject to the verification, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, if the tax is not deposited up to the date when the TCS was required to be deducted then the assessee is liable to pay the interest, for example if the TCS is required to be deducted and paid and the due date as per rule 37 was 30th July of the year 2008 and the advance tax was deposited on 01/2/2009, then the assessee is liable to pay interest for the period 01/8/2008 up to the date of deposit of the advance tax. In the light of the above observation, this issue is also remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to (i) to verify as to the date when the TCS was due by the seller/assessee, (ii) the date on which the advance tax was paid/deposited by the buyer, (iii) in case the advance tax is deposited prior to the due date of TCS, then no interest shall be charged. However, if the advance paid after the due date then the interest shall be charged for the intermediary period The Id Assessing Officer is directed to verify all these facts in respect of both the assessment years. In view thereof this ground of the appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes only. 6.3 Respectfully following the order of ITAT, Jaipur bench in appellant s own c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
