2024 (5) TMI 1019 - AT - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - assessee-in-default - non deduction of TDS u/s 194IA - AO held that the assessee is an assessee-in-default on account of non-deduction of TDS on purchase of properties - HELD THAT - The assessee has sought adjournment from time to time on frivolous / vague grounds and has neither caused appearance and nor furnished any documents to support to demonstrate that the assessee is covered by the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act and hence the assessee is not an assessee-in-default in the instant set of facts. In absence of any arguments by the assessee in support of it s case and in absence of any documentary evidences to demonstrate that the assessee is eligible for claiming benefit of First Proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) who also observed in his order that despite several opportunities the assessee failed to furnish any evidences to support that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of First Proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. Levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act we find no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of furnishing of return by the payee / deductee / recipient and accordingly in our considered view we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. In view of the above observation the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Levy of penalty u/s 271(c) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source on the payments made by the assessee towards purchase of products - We find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271C of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source u/s 194-IA of the Act looking into the instant facts. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for A.Y. 2015-16.

ITA No. 181/Ahd/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16):
The assessee challenged the demand of TDS u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the demands due to non-compliance with provisions and failure to provide necessary details.

ITA No. 182/Ahd/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16):
The appeal contested the penalty imposed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the absence of a personal hearing opportunity. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty considering non-deduction of tax at source.

The assessee, a real estate developer, failed to deduct TDS on property purchases as per Section 194-IA. Despite multiple adjournment requests, vague reasons, and lack of evidence supporting eligibility for exemptions, the assessee's appeals were dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions and the liability for interest until the payee files returns. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions, upholding the demands and penalties imposed. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for both cases.

Separate Judgment by Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, JM:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment request, citing vague reasons and a history of non-appearance. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance and evidence in tax matters, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to lack of substantiation and failure to meet statutory requirements.