PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, WARD- 76(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3706/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Departmental Representative failed to controvert the fact that the assessee fell under Gurgaon's jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed by the Delhi ITO was deemed invalid and void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional ground without adjudicating on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee was held in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) by the ITO, TDS Ward 76(3)-Delhi, for not deducting TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) payments to HUDA. The assessee argued that the Delhi ITO lacked jurisdiction, as its registered office had shifted to Gurgaon, Haryana, in 2008 and it had obtained a new TAN for Gurgaon jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer in Delhi had proper jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, given that the assessee's registered office had shifted from Delhi to Gurgaon, Haryana.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.09.2025Pronounced: 19.09.2025

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 27.05.2024 for A.Y 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 10 grounds of appeal.

However, the solitary grievance of the assessee is the action by the Assessing Officer wherein he has held that the assessee is in default u/s Page 1 of 5 development charges “EDC” payments made to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

3.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted vehemently that the impugned order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act dated 24-03-2021 has been passed by ITO, TDS Ward 76(3)-Delhi. It is the say of the ld AR that assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO, TDS, Ward 76(3)-Delhi is invalid, void-ab-initio as the jurisdiction in the present case lies with the ITO, TDS, Ward Gurgaon.

4.

The ld AR submitted that till 23-03-2008, the Registered Office of the Company was at New Delhi, which later on shifted to Gurgaon- Haryana and the same is evident from Hon'ble Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench vide their Order dated 29-08-2008 wherein it has approved the change of Registered Office to be situate in the State of Haryana, and accordingly MCA fee has been paid on 11-09-2008.

5.

The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that notice for change of Registered Office from the State of Delhi to State of Haryana was published in two leading newspapers, namely, Business Standard {English} and Veer Arjun {Hindi} and on 29-03-2008, pursuant to which, Registrar of Companies issued the above order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for New TAN on 04-01-2011 and accordingly new

Page 2 of 5 company started to file all of its TDS returns with new TAN from FY 2011- 12 and, accordingly, filed First TDS Return was filed on 12-07-2011.

Thus, the company started to deposit / file its TDS on new TAN instead of earlier TAN at Delhi address. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed that the present impugned TDS order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 24-03-2021 has been passed by ITO, TDS, Ward- 76(3), Delhi is invalid ab initio, as being passed by the Assessing Officer who had no jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Puri Construction Pvt Ltd [2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi) which has held the issue in the favour of Revenue on the issue of TDS on EDC payment made to HUDA.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. DR has not controverted the factum of jurisdiction of the ITO, TDS Gurgaon for the period under consideration. Since the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) has been passed by the Assessing Officer of the Delhi jurisdiction and the assessee belonged to the Gurgaon jurisdiction, the order cannot be sustained and thereby,

Page 3 of 5 merit need no adjudication since we have quashed the impugned order on jurisdictional ground. Accordingly, the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →