SUPERTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. JCIT, DELHI

ITA 5453/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the entity for which the information was received and that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily without any provision in law to levy liability solely for protecting revenue interests. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings against the assessee for alleged non-deduction of TDS on payments made for External Development Charges (EDC) during FY 2015-16. Information was received from the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, indicating payments made by Supertech India Private Limited to the Director of Town & Country Planning.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was rightly imposed on the assessee for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments when the information received was allegedly for a different entity. Whether the AO acted arbitrarily in passing the order without conclusive evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 133(6),Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, Advocate &, Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.09.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: 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).

2.

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 Priv

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 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →