2022 (12) TMI 181 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271C - TDS was not made on payment of External Development Charges (EDC) - Assessee argued provisions of section 194C were not applicable on payment, of EDC because the payment was made to the Government and not to the HUDA - HELD THAT - As decided in own case for the Assessment Year 2014-15 2022 (7) TMI 737 - ITAT DELHI as relying on TDI Infrastructure 2022 (7) TMI 388 - ITAT DELHI clarification memo no DTCP/ACCFTS/AO(AQ) /CAO/2894/2018 dated 19.06.18 issued by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana which made it very obvious that receipts on account of EDC are being deposited in the Consolidated Fund of the State, accordingly directions were issued to colonizer like present assessee, to not deduct TDS. Once the fact of receipt of amounts received by HUDA being deposited in Consolidated Fund of State is established, there can be no second opinion that Assessee was rightly directed by DTCP, Haryana to not deduct the TDS. Even otherwise no intentional default is attributed to assessee and the default, if any, was on account of ambiguity which had arisen out of a direction contained in a statutory document, so no penalty can be justified u/s 271C of the Act, which is meant to address contumacious conduct. As a wholesome effect of above, the Bench is of considered opinion that levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of TDS on payments made to HUDA.
3. Nature of payments made to HUDA and whether these constitute a statutory obligation.
4. Relationship between the assessee and HUDA/DTCP.
5. Legality of proceedings initiated under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
6. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee contested the penalty order of Rs. 14,24,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the Additional CIT, arguing that it was passed without proper application of mind and based on vague notices. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified as the payment of External Development Charges (EDC) was made to a government entity, HUDA, through DTCP, and not under any contractual obligation.

2. Applicability of TDS on Payments Made to HUDA:
The AO initially held that TDS was applicable on EDC payments to HUDA, considering it a taxable entity rendering services for external development work. However, the Tribunal referenced earlier judgments, including those in the cases of M/s. Perfect Constech P. Ltd. and RPS Infrastructure Ltd., which clarified that builders or developers are not required to deduct TDS on EDC payments to HUDA. The payments were made to a government department, not under a contract with HUDA, thus exempting them from TDS requirements.

3. Nature of Payments Made to HUDA:
The Tribunal noted that EDC payments were statutory obligations levied by the State Government of Haryana under the HUDA Act, and not contractual payments. The payments were directed by the DTCP and were necessary for obtaining a license for colonization. The Tribunal emphasized that these payments were not for specific services rendered by HUDA to the assessee but were part of a statutory requirement.

4. Relationship Between the Assessee and HUDA/DTCP:
The Tribunal observed that there was no master-servant or contractual relationship between the assessee and HUDA/DTCP. The EDC payments were made under statutory obligations, not under any contract. The Tribunal highlighted that the payments were directed by DTCP, a government department, and were not for specific services rendered by HUDA to the assessee.

5. Legality of Proceedings Under Section 201(1)/201(1A):
The assessee argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was illegal and void ab initio. The Tribunal, referencing prior judgments, concluded that the proceedings were not justified as the payments were made under statutory obligations and not contractual, thus not attracting TDS provisions.

6. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the penalty order violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed without proper justification and application of mind, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 271C is meant to address contumacious conduct, which was not evident in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the AO. It concluded that the payments made to HUDA were statutory obligations and not subject to TDS. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no contractual relationship between the assessee and HUDA/DTCP, and the penalty was imposed without proper justification, violating the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

← Previous Next →