9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee by the binding decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 [ 2015 (10) TMI 2184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as considered the issue in detail, both on facts and in law and has held that the provisions of section 194LA of the Act would apply only in the case of a compulsory acquisition and not to a case where lands were surrendered by land owners under section 14B of KTCP Act. Hon ble High Court also held that since BBMP is not paying consideration for acquisition of land in the form of cash, cheque, DD or any other mode prescribed under section 194LA but is only issuing CDR, the provisions of section 194LA of the Act are not attracted. The Hon ble Court also held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gara Palike (BBMP) is a local authority overseeing the development and provision of civic amenities of the city of Bengaluru. In consideration for acquisition of land for the purpose of providing civic amenities and infrastructure, the Assessee provided Development Right s Certificate(DRC). According to the revenue the Assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the market value of the DRC u/s.194LA of the Act and since the Assessee failed to deduct tax at source, the AO passed two orders both dated 17.3.2015 holding the assessee as an assessee in default u/s.201(1) of the Act and levied interest on the tax not deducted at source u/s.201(1A) of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JCIT Vs. Tractors Farm Equipments Ltd. 104 ITD 149 . The CIT(A) was also of the view that the assessee should prove it was diligent and no guilty of negligence and in this regard referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla v. Rewa Coalfields (AIR 1962 SC 361) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7. The CIT(A) accordingly refused to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal. Apart from challenging the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was belatedly filed, the assessee has also challenged the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonation of delay. The Hon ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Court has also explained that every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. In the case of Shakuntala Hegde, L/R of R.K. Hegde v. ACIT, ITA No.2785/Bang/2004 for the A.Y. 1993-94, the Hon ble Tribunal condoned the delay of about 1331 days in filing the appeal wherein the plea of delay in filing appeal due to advice given by a new counsel was accepted as sufficient. The Hon ble Karnataka Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal (supra) was upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka when it dismissed Revenue s appeal by order in ITA Nos.94 and 466 of 2015 dated 29.09.2015. The learned AR prayed that in view of the aforesaid binding decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee s own case (supra), the impugned orders of the CIT(A) be set aside and the assessee s appeals be allowed. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below; but prayed that the matter be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We do not concur with the prayer of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he BBMP for acquisition of land and therefore the assessee cannot be considered as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act. 8. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) on the identical issue, we hold that the provisions of section 194CA of the Act are not applicable / attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and therefore we hold that the impugned orders under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are bad in law and hereby quashed. 9. In the result, the assessee s appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
