9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (TDS) for proper verification of quantum of EDC charges paid by the appellant/assessee and doing needful accordingly. The appellant-assessee should ensure compliances during the set-aside proceedings. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicial Member And Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sarthak Jain, CA For the Respondent : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr.DR ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the AY ) 2017- 18 filed by the Appellant/assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action of AO in treating the appellant as assessee in default for not deducting TDS under section 194C of the act on amount of External Development Charges paid to HUDA ignoring the facts that the payment to HUDA was made on the direction of Directorate of Town and Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh, local authority established under the State Act, on which no liability of tax arises. The action of the Ld. CIT (A)/AO in confirming the same is erroneous, bad in law and must be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no agreement or contract between the appellant and HUDA a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, a real estate developer, was developing a housing project at Sohana, Gurugram. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Panchkula surveyed the office premises of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, the HUDA ) and Sky-High Land Construction Pvt. Ltd. under section 133A of the Act on 09.02.2017 and 14.02.2017 respectively. It was noted by the DCIT (TDS), Panchkula that the payment of External Development Charges (hereinafter EDC ) made to the HUDA was liable to Tax Deduction at Source (hereinafter, the TDS ) in the hands of various payers/persons including the appellant/assessee. The outcome of the said survey was circulated, vide a report dated 15.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in the order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. It was categorically submitted by the Ld. AR that the appellant/assessee had not paid any sum other than sum of Rs. 1,31,62,500/- on 19.01.2017. The remaining figures were challenged by him. He submitted that the Assessing Officer (TDS) had wrongly taken the sum of Rs. 3,57,12,500/- as against the actual sum of Rs. 1,31,62,500/-. He contended that neither the Assessing Officer (TDS) nor the CIT(A) took note of the specific submission in this regard. It was contended that the appellant s submission filed during the proceedings before the lower authorities were summarily dismissed without assigning any reason thereof. He thus, prayed for relief. 5. The Ld. Senior Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
