2023 (4) TMI 473 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194A - default as per Sec 201(1)/201(1A) - Non deduction of TDS on payment by the builder/developer for delayed allotment of plot of land or other property - HELD THAT - As decided in the case of West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation 2018 (9) TMI 114 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein held that the payment for delayed allotment of plot of land by the builder/developer is not interest u/s. 2(28A) since there was neither any borrowings of money nor was there incurring of debt on part of assessee therefore TDS provision of section 194A of the Act cannot applied to such a situation to treat the assessee as assessee in default alleging the non-compliance. Also see case of Delhi Development Authority 1995 (1) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI Thus we reach to a logical conclusion that the impugned payment is nothing but compensation/damages paid by the assessee to its allottees which cannot be tagged as interest u/s. 2(28A) - TDS provision of section 194A of the Act is not applicable towards such payment. Assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for noncompliance of TDS provisions on account of such payments. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Treatment of the assessee as default under Sec 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reassessment order.
3. Confirmation of the assessment order by the Ld. CIT(A).
4. Treatment of the assessee as default for non-compliance of TDS provisions under section 194A.

Issue 1: Treatment of the assessee as default under Sec 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the assessee in default under Sec 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The AR argued that the payment made to allottees was compensation, not interest, hence TDS deduction was not required under section 194A. The Senior DR contended that the payment was indeed interest and the assessee was rightly treated as default. The Tribunal noted the factual position that the payment was compensation for delays in project delivery, not interest, and relied on the Calcutta High Court judgment to set aside the orders treating the assessee as default.

Issue 2: Validity of the reassessment order:
The AR submitted that the reassessment order was bad in law and against the facts of the case. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the reassessment order was not sustainable due to the incorrect treatment of the payment as interest instead of compensation. The order was set aside based on the factual position presented by the assessee regarding the nature of the payment.

Issue 3: Confirmation of the assessment order by the Ld. CIT(A):
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in treating the assessee as default for non-compliance with TDS provisions under section 194A. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both parties, concluded that the payment made was compensation, not interest, and therefore, the assessee could not be treated as default for non-compliance with TDS provisions. The orders of the authorities below were deemed unsustainable and set aside.

Issue 4: Treatment of the assessee as default for non-compliance of TDS provisions under section 194A:
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in treating the assessee as default for non-compliance with TDS provisions under section 194A. The Tribunal, after analyzing the facts and legal position, determined that the payment made was compensation and not interest, as per the Calcutta High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered in default for non-compliance with TDS provisions. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the orders of the authorities below were set aside.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly categorizing payments for tax purposes and the significance of legal precedents in determining the tax treatment of specific transactions.

← Previous Next →