SUPERTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. JCIT, DELHI

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-8/10003/2020-21, filed before him against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the JCIT, Range-77(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short).

Heard and perused the record. Though ld. DR defends impugned order, on the basis of admitted facts coming from the impugned orders it comes up that the assessee company namely M/s Supertech India Private Limited is engaged in the business of Development of Real Estate and sale of Group Housing at Sonipat and Sohna. A report in this case was received on 01.08.2019 from the Office of JCIT(OSD), TDS Circle, Panchkula, vide F.No. JCIT(OSD)(TDS)/PKL/2019-20 dated 24.07.2019, vide which it was informed that information u/s 133(6) of the Act was received from the IDF under the office of the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, SCO 71-75, Sector-17-C. Chandigarh vide memo No. DTCP3897/2019 dated 21.06.2019 revealing that M/s Supertech India Private Limited, TAN: DELS20996D, had made certain payments in the nature of IDC and IAC during the financial year under consideration. It was further requested that since no TDS has been deducted on these payments, therefore appropriate action u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred as "the act") and penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the Act may be initiated for the failure. The JCIT(OSD), TDS Circle, Panchkula, vide his report intimated to AO office that during the survey proceedings, it was gathered that the EDC is covered by either the provision of Section 194C or Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, HUDA has changed the name of the EDC to IDC and IAC and further transferred it to the next office i.e., Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF) for the utilization of that fund under the head naming IAC and IDC where the above named assessee (among the others) failed to 2 deduct TDS on the payment made to IDF. In this case, proceedings u/s 201(1)(1A) of Tax Act, 1961 for FY. 2015-16 was initiated by issuing notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act on 02.08.2019. Subsequently, various notices u/s 201(1)/201(1A) were issued from time to time. During the course of the proceedings, the assessee filed requisite documents/details through his authorized representative which were placed on record and found tenable by AO. Thus vide notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT. Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2021, the assessee was show caused as to why the assessee should not be deemed to be assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on payment made towards IDC/IAC during the FY 2015-16 to HUDA & office of the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. The Assessee filed reply to the show cause notice as under:- “We had approached RTI Act, 2005 under article 19(1) of the constitution & inquired about the payment if any made by Supertech India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s HUDA during the F.Y. 2015-16 and we have received the reply from RTI department wherein they had clearly mentioned that there is no transaction/payment activity during the period and same reply submitted to your goodself department on dated 18.06.2021.”