BIRD HOSPITALITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-73(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1672/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 November 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the recipient had declared the income and paid tax. If so, the matter should be decided in light of the law and precedents like Hindustan Coca Cola.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated common area maintenance charges paid as subject to TDS under Section 194C instead of Section 194I. This led to a demand for short deduction of TDS and interest. The payee provided a certificate confirming they had declared the income and paid tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can be treated as assessee in default for short TDS deduction when the recipient has declared the income and paid tax, and whether the correct TDS section was applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 194I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

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 “A” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh Adv
For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

Both the captioned appeals are interconnected and therefore have been heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. Assessment Year 2012-13 2. As per ITA No.1673/Del/2020, the assessee has challenged the action of the Revenue’s Authorities in treating the assessee as assessee in default under Section 201(1) for alleged short deduction of TDS on payment of common area maintenance charges paid to one M/s. Ambience Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. owing to applying the provisions of Section 194C wrongly instead of Section 194I of the Act. Similarly, appeal in Section 201(A) @1% for every month for the period

I.T.A. No.1672 & 1673/Del/2020 2 of alleged default of alleged short deduction of TDS.

3.

The ld. counsel at the outset submits that the concerned payee has furnished certificate in Form No.26A prescribed under 1st proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act wherein the payee is certified to have fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in 1st proviso to sub section 1 of Section 201 of the Act. It is thus contended that where the recipient payee has furnished the certificate in form no. 26A prescribed under Rule 31ACB, the payee assessee should not be treated as assessee in default in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC).

4.

In view of the scheme of Section 201 of the Act and also in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra), where it is found that the recipient has disclosed the receipt in his return of income and tax has been paid on such receipts, in such circumstances, the assessee cannot be treated as ‘assessee in default’ under Section 201(1) of the Act per se.

5.

In the light of the certificate issued on behalf of the payee and having regard to the position of law, we consider it expedient to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the recipient of the payment giving rise to alleged short deduction have declared the receipts in their respective return of income and paid taxes thereon. In case, the payee(s) are found to have declared the receipt for the purposes of determination of total income, the issue may be decided in the light of the provisions of law and judicial precedents including dicta laid down in Hindustan Coca Cola (supra) in this regard.

6. Accordingly, the issue is restored back to the file of the I.T.A. No.1672 & 1673/Del/2020 3 Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observation made hereinabove. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity to defend the position taken by it.

6.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in for statistical purposes.

7.

Likewise, the appeal in Section 201(1A) shall also be determined afresh in sync with the position deduced by the Assessing Officer in respect of liability under Section 201(1), if any, as set aside in ITA No.1673/Del/2020.

8.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No.1672/Del/2020 is also allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/11/2022.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →