2023 (9) TMI 612 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns revenue orders, sends issues back for reevaluation. Assessee's appeal partly allowed.

Jaimeet Sawaria, C/o Hotel Maurya, Near Raj Talkies Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS) TDS Wing, Raipur

Jaimeet Sawaria, C/o Hotel Maurya, Near Raj Talkies Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS) TDS Wing, Raipur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order passed under section 201 read with section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the threshold limit for TDS deduction.3. Legitimacy of the late filing fees imposed under section 234E.4. Justification of the interest charged under section 201(1A).Summary:Issue 1: Legality of the Order under Section 201 read with Section 234EThe appellant challenged the order passed under section 201 read with section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it was 'highly illegal, bad in law, suffers from legal infirmities, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and hence liable to be quashed.' The Tribunal noted that the appellant had purchased two immovable properties jointly with his parents, and the aggregate consideration was Rs. 1,90,00,000/-. The Ld. AO passed an ex-parte order determining a demand of Rs. 2,16,995/- and late filing fee of Rs. 1,90,000/- under section 234E. The Tribunal found that the appellant was non-compliant during the proceedings and lacked supporting evidence for some claims, leading to the decision to restore the issue back to the files of Ld AO for verification and fresh adjudication.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 194-IAThe appellant contended that the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000 was not reached for each individual purchaser with reference to each immovable property, and hence, there was no liability to deduct and deposit tax at source as per section 194-IA. The Tribunal observed that the payments made by each co-buyer towards individual property were below the threshold limit, but the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence for the division of the home loan from HDFC Bank. The Tribunal directed the Ld AO to verify the actual status of the payment of consideration by each co-owner towards each flat/property and adjudicate the issue afresh.Issue 3: Legitimacy of Late Filing Fees under Section 234EThe appellant argued that the late filing fees of Rs. 1,90,000/- imposed under section 234E were 'highly illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, not proper on facts and not in accordance with the provisions of law.' The Tribunal, considering the facts and the appellant's non-compliance during the proceedings, decided to restore the issue back to the files of Ld AO for fresh adjudication.Issue 4: Justification of Interest under Section 201(1A)The appellant contended that the interest of Rs. 26,995/- charged under section 201(1A) was 'highly illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, not proper on facts and not in accordance with the provisions of law.' The Tribunal found that the appellant's shifting contentions and lack of supporting evidence necessitated a fresh verification by the Ld AO.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and restored the issues back to the Ld AO for verification with supporting evidence and fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced on 12/09/2023.