Assessee held liable for TDS non-deduction under Section 194IA on property purchases despite claiming First Proviso exemption

ITAT Ahmedabad upheld AO's determination that assessee was in default under Section 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA on property purchases. Despite multiple adjournments, assessee failed to provide evidence supporting eligibility for First Proviso to Section 201(1) exemption. Tribunal confirmed liability for interest under Section 201(1A) until deductee filed return and upheld penalty under Section 271C for TDS non-compliance. Appeal dismissed against assessee.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for A.Y. 2015-16.

ITA No. 181/Ahd/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16):
The assessee challenged the demand of TDS u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the demands due to non-compliance with provisions and failure to provide necessary details.

ITA No. 182/Ahd/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16):
The appeal contested the penalty imposed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the absence of a personal hearing opportunity. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty considering non-deduction of tax at source.

The assessee, a real estate developer, failed to deduct TDS on property purchases as per Section 194-IA. Despite multiple adjournment requests, vague reasons, and lack of evidence supporting eligibility for exemptions, the assessee's appeals were dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions and the liability for interest until the payee files returns. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions, upholding the demands and penalties imposed. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for both cases.

Separate Judgment by Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, JM:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment request, citing vague reasons and a history of non-appearance. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance and evidence in tax matters, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to lack of substantiation and failure to meet statutory requirements.

---