Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ITA.No.815/PUN./2023 Assessment Years 2017-2018 M/s. Marvel Sigma Homes Private Ltd., 4th Floor, Above The Income Tax Officer, IDBI Bank, Arthavishwa (TDS-1), Shankarsheth vs., Bldg., Lane No.5, Koregaon Road, Swargate, Pune. Park, Pune – 411 001. PIN – 411 037. Maharashtra. Maharashtra PAN AAGCM6007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 02.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023 ORDER PER BENCH :
These four assessees’ as many appeals ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023, for assessment year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune’s separate Din and Order Nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1052743778(1), 10527433356(1), 1052744164(1), 1052744632(1), all dated 11.05.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 201 (1) r.w.s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
All four cases called twice. None appears at these assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that all these four assessees’ viz., M/s. Marvel Edge Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Marvel Landmarks Private Ltd., M/s. Marvel Omega Builders
3 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 Private Ltd., and M/s. Marvel Sigma Homes Private Ltd., corresponding four appeals ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 seek to reverse both the lower authorities identical action raising sec.201 r.w.s. 201(1A) TDS and interest demands of Rs.10,23,214/- ; Rs.88,29,905/-; Rs.2,70,20,276/-; and Rs.1,48,89,981/-; case-wise, respectively.
Mr. Murkunde invited our attention to the NFAC’s identical detailed discussion in the “lead” appeal ITA.No.812/PUN./2023 reading as under :
4 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 5 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 6 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 7 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessees’ identical pleadings raising the sole substantive grievance of correctness of sec.201(1) r.w.s.201(1A) demands and Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the same at length. We find from a perusal of the case files that all these assessees are fair enough in not disputing their very liability to deduct TDS u/secs.194A, 194C, 194I and 194J paid in F.Y. 2016-2017 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18; as the case may be, involving varying sums, to the recipients concerned. Their only ground before us is that the payees concerned have offered the same to tax and therefore, they duly stand assessed. We are afraid to accept the assessees’ instant sole substantive contention for want of the corresponding records and evidence emanating from the case files. We make it clear that although the legislature has diluted the provisions of the impugned TDS recovery mechanism u/secs.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) subject to only to the condition that it is incumbent for the “assessee(s) – in-default” to file the relevant details to this effect going by sec.201(1) first proviso introduced in the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned lower authorities have also rejected the 8 ITA.Nos.812 to 815/PUN./2023 assessees’ contention for the very reason only as it is evident from the NFAC’s above extracted detailed discussion. We thus see no merit in these assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance. The same stands rejected. Ordered accordingly.
These four assessees’ as many appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.08.2023.