RENU MISHRA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1001/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 May 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, confirming that the assessee was liable for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA for the purchase of immovable property exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee's plea of ignorance of law was not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 60,51,000/- and failed to deduct TDS under Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer held the assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS, raising a demand of Rs. 1,08,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was liable for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA for the purchase of immovable property. Whether the assessee's claim of ignorance of law could be a ground for condonation of penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194IA,Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Mishra (Physically)
For Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma JCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) Renu Mishra ITO TDS, Udaipur 3 D 32, Sector-7 Rajasthan-313002 PAN-AGXPM9197R Assessee by Shri Brijesh Mishra (Physically) Revenue by Smt. Ayushi Sharma JCIT-DR (Virtually) Date of Hearing 07 / 05 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 20 / 05 / 2026.

ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as the JCIT(A)] dated 17.09.2025 with respect to assessment year 2019-20 challenging therein rejection of request for change of head TDS instead of advance tax and condonation of penalty demand of Rs. 1,08,000/-.

2.

At the outset, the appellant assessee has submitted that she has purchased an immovable property worth Rs. 60,51,000/- from Mr.

2 ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) Prakash Chandani on 05.09.2018. A letter for verification of TDS deduction as per the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act was issued to the appellant. The AO has passed an order under Section 201 of the Act on 18.03.2025 by holding the assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA for the purchase of immovable property worth Rs. 60,51,000/- and raised demand of Rs. 1,08,000/-.

3.

Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant preferred the e-appeals scheme, 2023, notified by the Central board of Direct Tax. The appellate proceedings were transferred to the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana. The Ld. JCIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee vide para 6.3 and 6.4 of the impugned order by observing as under:- 6.3 On the perusal of the order passed u/s 201 and the written submissions along with document's submitted by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant has purchased an immovable property from the seller Mr. Prakash Chandarni (PAN: AGMPC5959J) worth Rs. 60,51,000/- on 05.10.2018 and accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act, she was required to deduct TDS @ 1% of the on the sum paid to the seller at the time of payment, if the transfer of immovable property is fifty lakh rupees or above. The provisions of section 1941A of the Act is as under:

3 ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) Payment on transfer of certain immovable property other than agricultural land. 194-IA. (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying (other than the person referred to in section 194LA) to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent. of such sum as income- tax thereon. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, - (a) "agricultural land" means agricultural land in India, not being a land situate in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (b) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building 6.4 On the perusal of the submissions and the payment of tax challan submitted by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant failed to deduct tax an amount equal to one percent of such sum of payment for the purchase of the immovable property as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to submit the computation of the capital gain raised from the sell of the

4 ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) said immovable property to verify the tax implication of the transaction of the said immovable property. Keeping in view of above, the order passed u/s 201 of the Act by the AO is upheld and confirmed. Thus, the ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant assessee has submitted that she is an uneducated female and moreover, the required tax on purchase of property was paid at the same time of purchase, however, due to lack of knowledge of IT Rules, she could not file form 35 and 26QB which is an apparent mistake. Since there is no evasion of tax and the mistake may be pardoned from levy of any penalty. The appellant requested that due to ignorance of law the payment of tax was made under the head advance tax instead of deducting TDS under Section 194IA of the Act. She pleaded that on account of ignorance of law, the relief may be granted by deleting the tax demand raised.

5.

The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the impugned order.

6.

Having heard both the sides and perusal of the record. We find that appellant has purchased an immovable property from the seller Mr. Prakash Chandani worth Rs. 60,51,000/- on 05.09.2018 and accordingly under Section 194IA of the Act, she was required to deduct the TDS @ 1% on the sum paid to the seller at the time of the payment, if the

5 ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) transfer of immovable property is 50,00,000/- rupees or above. In the present case the transaction of the property has been worth Rs. 60,51,000/- which is more than 50,00,000/- and therefore, she is required to deduct the TDS @ 1% under Section 194IA of the Act. Since the appellant assessee failed to deduct the TDS of amount equal to 1% of the sum of the payment against the purchase of the immovable property as per the provision of Section 194IA of the Act, he was liable to pay the capital gains raised from the sale of the said immovable property.

7.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the Ld. JCIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the AO under Section 201 of the Act. Thus impugned order passed by JCIT(A) is upheld.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 20 / 05 /2026 in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 20/05/2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS

6 ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2019-20) True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 194IA

All 147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →