JBB INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. WARD 13(3), DELHI, NEW DELHI

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, the Appellant can not be said to be 'assessee in default' in view of explanation to section 191 of the Act. As per explanation to section 191 if any person does not deduct, OR after so deducting fails to pay, OR does not pay, the whole OR any part of the tax, as required by OR 1 under the Act and WHARE the assessee has failed to pay any such tax directly, then, such person shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deeded to be an assessee in default. In the present the tax has been paid directly by the HUDA, therefore the Appellant cannot be considered as "assessee in default".

BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) was wrong, unjust and arbitrary in confirming the addition of Rs. 258000.00/- and is in gross violation of first proviso of section 201 of the Act.

BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong, unjust and arbitrary in confirming the addition of Rs. 258000.00/- by invoking section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act. Section 40(a)(ia) states that 30% of amount payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted OR after deduction, has not been paid on OR before the due date. In the present case the amount of EDC was not charged to Profit and Loss account, therefore no question of any disallowance, as the same has not been charged to Profit and Loss Account. Section 40(a)(ia) shall have no application. 4. The appellant craves leave to add OR alter one OR more ground (s) during the course of hearing of appeal.

Because the impugned order dated 01/05/2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner (Appeal), NFAC is bad in law as the same has been passed without considering the correct facts of the case, which is quite unfair and against the principle of natural justice.

Because the impugned order passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals), NFAC is bad in law as the same has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of sub section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant were disposed off mechanically without properly appreciating the facts of the Case and ignoring the correct facts narrated by the Appellant during the course of appellate proceedings.

BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the validity of 3 | P a g e issuance of Notice dated 28.03.2019 under section 148 of the 7 Income Tax Act ignoring the vital fact that there was no income much less the income chargeable to tax, within the meaning of section 147 of the Act was escaped assessment for the relevant Assessment year.

BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 28.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as no sanction/approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was taken under section 151 of the Income Tax Act and not provided to the Appellant.

BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A), NFAC is bad in law and on facts, as the Addition made of Rs 2,58,000.00 on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is totally incorrect and without appreciating the correct facts of the case that the payment of External Development Charges (EDC) 9 is not for carrying out any specific work to be done by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for and on behalf of the appellant. The payment has been made to HUDA through DTCP which is a Government Department and the same is not in pursuance to any contract between the appellant and HUDA. Thus, the payment of EDC to HUDA would not be liable for deduction of tax at source and accordingly the assessee cannot be treated "assessee in default" as per section 201 of the Act.

Suffice to say, the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action treating it as the assessee is in default for not having deducted TDS on external development charges paid to M/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). This being the clinching factual position, learned counsel could hardly dispute that hon’ble juri ictional high court in Puri Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 444 (Del.) appears to have 4 | P a g e already settled the issue against the assessee and in the department’s favour thereby concluding that such a payment of external development charges indeed attracts TDS deduction under chapter XVII of the Act. I thus see no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground, which is hereby rejected in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)