2018 (8) TMI 26 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Renting of Immovable Property Service – non-payment of service tax – premises were occupied during the entire period in terms of the agreement but Form 26 AS submitted by the party shows that the party received the amount made by their tenant only upto June, 2011 – deduction of TDS amounts – Held that:- Form 26 AS is a document under the Income Tax Law reflecting the amount of tax deduction at source (TDS) – Admittedly the TDS is required to be deducted by a person making payment to another person and reflects on all the payment actually made. The appellants have not produced any evidence to show that such TDS amount reflected in Form 26 AS is incorrect or inflated or the appellant have made any refund claim of such excess TDS collected by the tenant, from the Income Tax Authorities.
–
Thus, the amounts reflected in Form 26 AS represent the correct value of the services which has to be adopted as the assessable value, unless evidence to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
a notice of hearing has been sent to the assessee well in advance, it was the responsibility of the assessee to make full arrangements for engaging the advocate in advance and to hand over papers to the advocate. Further I also note that the appeal has been filed by the appellant s Authorized Representative under a Vakalatnama by the name of Mr. Brijesh Verma and Associates, whereas the request for adjournment is being made by Advocate Shri Shambhu Chopra whose Vakalatnama is not on record. He only submits that he will submit his Vakalatnama today. As his Vakalatnama as also No Objection Certificate from the previous counsel is not on record the request made by the learned advocate cannot be entertained as he is not authorized to appear. 2. On going through the impugned orders I find that the demand of Service Tax stand confirmed against the appellant under the category of Renting of Immovable Property . As per the investigations made by the Revenue, it was found that the appellant, w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
at the premises were lying vacant for the period July, 2011 to December, 2011. 5. While adjudicating, the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax, Agra accepted the assessee s stand of entitlement to the threshold exemption. As regards the premises lying vacant during the period July, 2011 to December, 2011, he observed that even if it is assumed that the premises were occupied during the entire period in terms of the agreement but Form 26 AS submitted by the party shows that the party received the amount made by their tenant only upto June, 2011 and thereafter, the premises were rented to another company from February, 2012. He, accordingly accepted assessee s stands that the premises were lying vacant during the said period and no rent was received by them. By observing so, he held that inasmuch as during the period, apart from the one during which the premises were lying vacant, the appellant have received the rent from the tenants and provided services, the same are liable to service tax.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ne by the terms of the agreement entered into between the appellant and their tenants as also by the value reflected in Form 26 AS. After hearing the learned AR I note that Form 26 AS is a document under the Income Tax Law reflecting the amount of tax deduction at source (TDS). Admittedly the TDS is required to be deducted by a person making payment to another person and reflects on all the payment actually made. The appellants have not produced any evidence to show that such TDS amount reflected in Form 26 AS is incorrect or inflated or the appellant have made any refund claim of such excess TDS collected by the tenant, from the Income Tax Authorities. In such a scenario, I hold that the amounts reflected in Form 26 AS represent the correct value of the services which has to be adopted as the assessable value, unless evidence to the contrary is produced by the appellant. 7. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the impugned orders confirming the differential duty of ₹ 2,33
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =