THREE C HOMES PRIVATE LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 958/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2023AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no action under Section 201(1) was warranted. The matter was remanded back to the AO solely for re-computation of interest under Section 201(1A).

What were the facts?

The assessee paid lease rent to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area (YEIDA). The CIT(A) held that a portion of the lease rent was annual and liable for TDS, while another portion was a one-time payment also liable for TDS. The CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the AO for verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) has the power to remand the matter to the AO and whether TDS was deductible on the lease rent paid to YEIDA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. C. N. PrasadDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.10.2022Pronounced: 05.01.2023

ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 28.03.2022.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), to the extent of addition of Lease Rent sent back to AO for verification, is bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is fact finding authority, therefore Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue of quantum of lease rent paid by the assessee company during the A.Y. 2013-14 instead of referring back the matter to Ld. AO in para 4.2.6 of the impugned order.

3. That as per section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT(A) can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment but cannot remand back the matter to AO.

4. That as per section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT(A) can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided

2 Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. the issue as to whether the assessee company, being payer can be treated as assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-after filing the requisite documents in lieu of Form 26A instead of referring back the matter to Ld. AO in para 4.5.6 of the impugned order.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition towards lease rent after filing of requisite documents in terms of CBDT Circular No-275/20l/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997 on the contrary referred back the matter to Ld. AO in para 4.5.6 of the impugned order;

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition towards lease rent after filing of requisite documents Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [20071 163 Taxman 355 (SC) on the contrary referred back the matter to Ld. AO in para 4.5.6 of the impugned order;

7.

That the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area is a government body. Therefore, the taxes may be presumed to have been paid lastly by the due date of filing of the return of income vide order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CIT Vs. Trans Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. in 894/2008.”

3.

The Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area (YEIDA) has been constituted by a State Act and the assessee has failed to deduct tax u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

The assessee paid an amount of Rs.2,47,58,400/- to YEIDA towards lease rent. The ld. CIT(A) held that the lease rent amounting to Rs.1,83,48,160/- is the annual lease rent and is in the nature of revenue expenditure covered by Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and liable to be deducted TDS @ 10% and the default amount of Rs.18,34,160/- u/s 201(1) was determined. Further, it was held that as per the correction deed dated 04.02.2013, the assessee has paid one time lease rent amounting to Rs.63,69,810/- equivalent to 11 years of the lease rent and no further annual lease rent would be required to be paid for the balance period. The ld. CIT(A) held that this 3 Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. amount is also liable to TDS u/s 194-I. It was argued that YEIDA being a Government organization has duly declared the lease rent paid by the assessee without deducting the TDS. We have gone through the confirmation letter dated 14.12.2021 as received from the YEIDA confirming their income tax return for A.Y. 2013-14, copy of income tax return for A.Y. 2013-14 filed by the YEIDA, receipt and payment account of the YEIDA for F.Y. 2012-13, certified copy of account statement of the assessee in the books of YEIDA and copy of notification No. 11/2016 dated 21.12.2016. The ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the file of the AO to take appropriate action as per the law. We have gone through the record and find that no action u/s 201(1) of the Act is called for and the matter is being remanded back to the file of the AO only to re-compute interest u/s 201(1A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/01/2023.

More judgments on Section 194-I

All 307 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →