ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. PROMPT ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 489/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2022AY 2012-135 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no legal requirement for the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments made to HUDA for EDC. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a real estate developer, paid external development charges (EDC) to HUDA without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer disallowed 30% of these charges under Section 40(a)(ia).

What were the issues?

Whether tax was required to be deducted at source on external development charges (EDC) paid to HUDA, and consequently, whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv
Hearing: 21.09.2022Pronounced: 21.09.2022

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the Revenue against order dated 20.11.2019 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The short issue which needs to be adjudicated in the present appeal is, whether the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the external development charges (EDC) paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)..

3.

Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in the business of real estates development.

4.

In course of assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has paid an amount of Rs.8,82,60,000 to HUDA towards EDC without deducting tax at source. Being of the view that assessee was required to deduct tax at source on payment of EDC, which the assessee has failed to do, the assessing officer invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowed 30% of the EDC paid, which works out to Rs.2,64,78,000. Assessee was successful in contesting the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee as well as learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that the issue on merits is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT (2020) 421 ITR 51 and various decisions of the co-ordinate Bench.

6.

Having carefully gone through the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT (supra), we find that while dealing with an identical issue of non-deduction of TDS and EDC paid to HUDA, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that Revenue was unable to point out any specific provision which deals with EDC. In other words, the Hon’ble Court held that payment of EDC was not covered under any of the TDS provisions. In case of M/s. Splender Land Bus Ltd. vs. Additional CIT(supra), the co-ordinate Bench, after following the decision of another co-ordinate Bench in case of Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – dated 26.05.2022, has held that by not deducting tax on payment made to HUDA towards EDC, no violation of TDS provision was made. Thus, with due obedience to the ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited before us, we hold that there was no legal requirement on assessee to deduct tax at source while making payment of EDC to HUDA.

Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unsustainable on merits. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, based on our own reasoning.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →