EMAAR INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-74(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.] 3. The assessee herein canvasses it’s first and foremost legal ground/argument that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in changing the head of the impugned disallowance/addition of Rs.2,13,60,284/- representing TDS recovery on External Development Charges “EDC” paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority “HUDA”, from that held deductible under section 194I by the Assessing Officer to section 194C (in the nature of contractual payments), in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, the Revenue is indeed very fair in not rebutting the above clinching fact that the learned Assessing Officer has treated the assessee as the assessee in default for not having deducting TDS under Section 194I of the Act. We accordingly find no merit in the learned CIT(A)’s impugned action in light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that no such juri iction is vested in him of changing a head of income u/s 251(1) of the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal 3 | P a g e ground to delete the impugned section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) TDS recovery addition in very terms.