IN THE ITAT AGRA BENCH
Agra Development Authority
versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Agra
IT Appeal Nos. 83 To 85 (Agra) of 2011
[Assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10]
April 27, 2012
ORDER
Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member
All the appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra dated 24.12.2010 for F.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 relevant to the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively passed u/s. 206C(6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act.
2. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and the material on record.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a survey u/s. 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 29.02.2008 at the premises of the assessee to check the correct applicability of TDS/TCS provisions of the Income-tax Act. During the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee/deductor has been allotting parking lots to different contractors and was not collecting taxes at source (TCS) from the contractors. Accordingly, summons u/s. 131 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee/deductor requiring to furnish the details of TCS pertaining to parking lots. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee and the details noted that the provisions of section 206C(1C) are applicable for the purpose of deduction of TCS in respect of parking lots because the person who is granting parking lots is responsible for collecting tax at source and in this case, the Financial Controller of Agra Development Authority (ADA) has defaulted by not collecting tax at source. The AO noted the details of defaulted amounts of TCS with interest at page 6 & 7 of the order dated 21.01.2009 passed for all the assessment years and raised total demand of Rs. 4,62,841/- against the assessee. The break up is noted therein that for F.Y. 2006-07 demand of Rs. 1,02,141/- (80640 TCS + 21502 interest) was raised and demand of Rs.2,88,337/- (251185 TCS + 37157 Interest) was raised for F.Y. 2007-08 and demand of Rs.72,362/- (67890 TCS + 4472 Interest) was raised for F.Y. 2008-09. The assessee challenged the combined order raising the above demands by the AO before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee in detail confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed all the appeals of the assessee.
4. The assessee in the present appeals challenged the liability for making TCS and the interest u/s. 206 of the IT Act on the grounds mentioned in the appeals. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record we decide the submissions raised before us as under :
4.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee allotted parking lots to different contractors in all the assessment years under appeals. The assessee has also not disputed before the ld. CIT(A) regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 206 of the IT Act wherein a person is liable to make TCS from the persons with whom a contract has been entered into for parking lots. The ld. counsel for the assessee also did not dispute the charging of interest u/s. 206C (7) of the IT Act in case of default in not depositing TCS with the Government. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO passed the order u/s. 206C read with section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act and issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of section 201(1) and (1A) of the IT Act are not attracted in this case and the ld. CIT(A) agreed to the submissions of the assessee that those provisions are not applicable. However, the ld. CIT(A) considered the issue relating to the matter of TCS, which is applicable to the present case. The ld. counsel for the assessee also did not dispute the figures of tax collected and interest thereon for all the three years, as noted by the AO in the impugned order. The ld. counsel for the assessee on different arguments challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in raising the demand against the assessee. Therefore, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 206C of the IT Act, which are applicable to the present case.
4.2 Section 206C(1C), (6), (6A) and (7) of the IT Act read as under :
“(1C). Every person, who grants a lease or a licence or enters into a contract or otherwise transfers any right or interest either in whole or in part in any parking lot or toll plaza or mine or quarry, to another person, other than a public sector company (hereafter in this section referred to as “licensee or lessee”) for the use of such parking lot or toll plaza or mine or quarry for the purpose of business shall, at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the licensee or lessee to the account of the licensee or lessee or at the time of receipt of such amount from the licensee or lessee in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the licensee or lessee of any such licence, contract or lease of the nature specified in column (2) of the Table below, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of such amount as income-tax:
TABLE
