TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 and was thus not applicable to any years prior to that. AOP and its members are not separate entities, therefore no TCS was required to be collected from its member. Even, in the remand report, CIT(A) has admitted that assessee was not liable to make TCS u/s 206C(1C) r.w.s 206C(6), thus there was no question of charging interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act. More particularly, the proviso clause with regard to charging of interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 and since the present case pertains to AY 2009-10. Therefore, the assessee was not covered under the said provision, hence, was not liable to pay interest. We order accordingly and also these grounds raised by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 206C(7) for FY 08 09 to 11 12 be cancelled. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being contractor AOP by the name of M/s Buldhana Urban Credit Coop. Society Ltd. And National Building Construction JV, Buldhana (henceforth referred to as JV). It was noted that the appellant is engaged in the business of construction and had entered into a toll contr\act with the Executive Engineer, PWWD, Buldhana on built operate and transfer (BOT basis) for undertaking the work of two laning of Malkapur Buldhana Chikhali Road in Buldhana district. It was further noted that the JV had further entered into a toll contract with the contractor firm M/s JV Kulkarni and Friends Associates for collection of toll and it was noted that the appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 572294/ 36959474/ 4. Aggrieved by this assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee was an AOP and work of collection of toll had given to one of the member of AOP and that since in the case of AOP, a member thereof is not another person and therefore there was no default in not making TCS and in support of assessee s arguments, Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). The learned CIT(A) on the basis of submission filed by the assessee sought remand report from the AO and the AO vide letter dated 01.01.2015 addressed the various issues raised by the assessee. Whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of interest is as below mentioned table. The learned CIT(A) on the basis of remand report and the arguments of the parties had recorded its findings which are contained in para 6 of his order and the same is reproduced below: 6. Thus it is evident that the Ld. AO herself has accepted the contention of the appellant in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd and has given a finding that no demand under section 206C(6) lies in the case of the appellant and only demand on account of interest under section. 206C(7) is chargeable till the date of filing of return of income. In view of the above clear finding of the Ld. AO, the demand raised under section. 206C(1C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause of section 206C(7) of the Act with regard to charging of interest was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 and was thus not applicable to any years prior to that. 8. The AOP and its members are not separate entities, therefore no TCS was required to be collected from its member. Even, in the remand report, learned CIT(A) has admitted that assessee was not liable to make TCS u/s 206C(1C) r.w.s 206C(6), thus there was no question of charging interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act. More particularly, the proviso clause with regard to charging of interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 and since the present case pertains to AY 2009-10. Therefore, the assessee was not covered under the said provision, hence, was not liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal facts, the order passed by us in ITA No.176/Nag/2015 (supra) would even otherwise be applicable to these appeals. 14. Although assessee has not been able to successfully demonstrate before us any sufficient cause for condonation of delay but keeping in view the above mentioned peculiar facts and the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play, we hereby hold that this is a fit case to condone the delay. We order accordingly and admit these appeals for adjudication. 15. Now we proceed to decide the above appeals on merits. Since we have already allowed assessee s appeal in ITA No.176/Nag/2015 for AY 2009 10 (supra), the grounds of these appeals are also allowed with similar observation. 12. In the result, all the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
