SUDERSHAN KUMAR SAINI,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, AAYKAR BHAWAN,CHANDIGARH

ITA 673/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the allegation of cash payment for the property purchase remained inconclusive. The assessee had denied making any cash payment, and the judgment noted that it was not demonstrated that any such quantum addition was made in the hands of the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the property was acquired jointly by the assessee and his wife. It was observed that the additional requirement to deduct TDS on an aggregate basis for transferors/transferees was brought into effect only from 01.10.2024. Therefore, this provision could not be applied retrospectively to AY 2019-20. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the impugned demand raised against the assessee was not sustainable and directed its deletion. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudershan Kumar Saini, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenges an order dated 19.03.2026 by the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which confirmed a demand of Rs.1,53,076/-. This demand was raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1)/201(1A) vide an order dated 27.03.2025. The AO's action stemmed from a search in the Singla Builders & Promoters group, which indicated that the assessee had purchased property and paid Rs.10.29 Lacs in cash, in addition to a cheque payment of Rs.43.60 Lacs. The AO treated the assessee as being in default for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on the total purchase consideration, as it exceeded the threshold limit under Section 194-IA.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is liable for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194-IA, when the allegation of cash payment for property purchase is inconclusive and denied by the assessee? 2. Whether the AO was justified in treating the assessee as assessee-in-default for non-deduction of TDS, considering the property was acquired jointly with his wife and the amendment requiring aggregate TDS deduction on joint transfers was effective from a later date? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee refuted the AO's allegation, stating that the total property value was Rs.47.28 Lacs and no cash payment was made. The assessee also argued that the property was acquired jointly with his wife, and the provision for aggregate TDS deduction on joint transfers was introduced only from 01.10.2024, thus not applicable retrospectively to AY 2019-20. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-IA,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [CIT(A)] dated 19.03.2026 confirming demand of Rs.1,53,076/- as raised by Ld. AO u/s 201 (1) / 201(1A) vide order dated 27.03.2025. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO referred to search action in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194-IA

All 76 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-IA →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →