Case Law Details
Jayaprakasha Rai Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 09.06.2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Prashanth Wines, Sullia, engaged in the retail business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) using the excise licence in the name of Mrs. Pramila P Rai, daughter-in-law of the assessee’s brother. Originally the central excise licence in respect of this business was in the name of Shri. Balakrishna Rai, brother of the assessee. After the death of Shri. Balakrishna Rai, the excise licence got transferred to the name of Mrs. Pramila P Rai, daughter-in-law of late Shri. Balakrishna Rai. It is the claim of the assessee that there was a family settlement and understanding by which the business of M/s. Prashanth Wines was to be carried beneficially by the assessee, though the licence for the said business was in the name of Mrs. Pramila P. Rai. All the purchases of IMFL were made from Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd., (KSBCL) by the assessee using the excise licence of Mrs. Pramila P. Rai.
3. In terms of section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), Tax Collection at Source (TCS) was made by KSBCL of Rs.1,39,296/-. The assessee claimed credit for TCS in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2018-19. The claim was rejected by the AO as well as the CIT(A) for the reason that as per the procedure for claiming credit for TCS laid down in Rule 37-I of the I. T. Rules read with section 206C(4) of the I. T. Act, credit can be given only for Mrs. Pramila Rai and not the Assessee. The relevant provisions of Sec.206C(4) and Rule 37-I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) reads as under:
Section 206C(4) reads as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
