ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Though various grounds have been raised by the Revenue but the sole issue involved in this appeal by the Revenue is regarding the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing officer u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194A and 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on payment of External Development Charges (EDC) by the assessee to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).

The Ld. DR, though, has relied on the order of the Assessing officer but has fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee dated 7.6.2018 rendered in the case of ‘ITO v M/s Sukham Infrastructure Pvt Ltd,’ ITA No. 638/Chd/2015, which has also been followed by the Tribunal in the case of ‘ITO Vs. Sh. Nirankar Singh’ vide order dated 01.08.2018 passed in ITA No. 433/Chd/2018.

We find that the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case has rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal dated 7.6.2018 in the own of assessee titled as ‘ITO (TDS) Vs. M/s Sukham Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein, the Tribunal vide para 13 to para 22 of the order has held that the provisions of section 194C and 194A are not applicable in respect of payment of EDC charges and interest on delayed payment of EDC remitted by the assessee to GMADA. Moreover, the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT (TDS) & Anr Vs. Canara Bank’ Civil appeal No. 6020 of 2018 vide order dated 2.7.2018.

In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the additions so made by the Assessing officer.