IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 13 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Ranchi having its office 3rd Floor, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Mahatma Gandhi Main Rd., Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi. ..… Appellant Versus M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office opposite Governor House, Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

..... Respondent ---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. SC Mr. Anurag Vijay, AC to Sr. SC For the Respondent : Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Piyush Poddar, Adv Mr. Mahendra Kr. Choudhary, Adv Mr. Manav Poddar, Adv.

---------

Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 12 /02/2025 Per: Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) challenging the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in I.T.A No.38/Ran/2021.

3. The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law as stated in paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal:

a. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the fact that it is duty and the responsibility of the assessee company to collect TCS @ 1% under section 206C (1A) of the Act from all buyers on the sale of coal if it is not used for self consumption or for the purpose for which it was intended to be used ?

b. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the assessee company is not responsible for verification of Form 27C if it is duly filed in and signed by the declarant ignoring the fact that Form 27C is widely misused and coal are utilized for trading purpose?

c. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default”

under section 206C of the Act?

d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that “if such buyer furnishes to the persons responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner” mentioned in the sub-section 1A of the section 206C, meaning thereby that not only it should be furnished in prescribed form in duplicate, but also verified in prescribed manner. In such circumstances, whether, M/s Central Coalfields Limited was required to verify the genuineness of the buyers who submitted Form 27C for they being the end user of the coal for manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things or for the purpose of generation of power and not for trading purposes?

e. Whether on the facts and in law, in the light of the extant provisions prescribed under section 206C (1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 37C of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, the Ld. ITAT has erred in shifting the entire onus to verify the genuineness of such buyers who submitted the Form 27C to the seller, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, on the Income Tax Department?

f. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in ignoring the outcome of enquires made in the case of M/s Gautam Coal Works Pvt. Ltd. establishing the fact that this buyer was not the end user of the coal purchased from M/s Central Coalfields Limited?

g. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in deleting the entire demand against the respondent assessee, M/s Central Coalfields Limited on the technical ground that the entire demand was created for a single Assessment Year 2018-19, whereas in the order u/s 206C dated 10.11.2017, the TCS demands as well as the interest thereof were calculated for each Assessment Year pertaining to A.Y.

2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 separately?

4. Though, the Revenue has proposed as many as nine substantial q