Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed twin appeals against the Addl./JCIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 and 2019-20, challenging findings that it defaulted by not deducting TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). These payments were treated as contractual payments under Section 194C of the Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional high court decision in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd., noted that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments has been settled against the assessee, confirming that such payments attract TDS. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the assessee was in default in Section 201(1) proceedings for failing to deduct TDS.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was required to deduct TDS on External Development Charges paid to HUDA under Section 194C, and whether it was in default under Section 201(1A)/201(1) for failing to do so.
Sections Cited
201(1A), 194C, 201(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-3, Aditya Commercial Complex, Ward-22(3), Plot No. 7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAQCS4737B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals in & 3213/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019-20, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A), Prayagraj’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1074091615(1) & 1073551112(1) dated 21.02.2025 & 06.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Suffice to say, the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant twin appeals challenges both the learned & 3213/Del/2025 Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”) which stand treated as contractual payments u/s 194C of the Act.
We notice in this precise factual backdrop that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 441 (Del.) has already settled the above sole issue against the assessee and in the department’s favour that such are “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms.