Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court. ported in (1972) ITR 83 page 27 (Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa), where it dealt with the provisions contained in Orissal Sales Tax Act. While considering the general principles, the Apex Court has held that penalty can be levied on failure of the assessee
HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e.,as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two,
In spite of the enunciation of law in ACC, Entry 25 has not stood revived or restored into the Sixth Schedule of the Act. Therefore the Authorities under the Act cannot levy tax under the Act in regard to transfer of property in goods involved in processing photo negatives and supplying of photo prints and photographs, as if Entry 25 has stood restored in the Sixth Schedule to the Act.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,644 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81, being the amount transferred to the ‘molasses storage fund’ from the sale proceeds of the molasses ?
