2025 (9) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 201(1)/201(1A) where TDS jurisdiction properly rested with ITO, TDS.

ITAT DELHI - AT held that the assessing officer of Delhi lacked jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) against the assessee for failure to ... Assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO, TDS Delhi V/S Gurgaon - Default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - not having deducted TDS on external development charges “EDC” payments made to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) - HELD THAT:- 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, the same is quashed as invalid and void ab initio. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Appeal challenges an order under sections 201(1)/201(1A) holding the assessee a defaulting deductor for failing to deduct TDS on external development charges (EDC) paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority. Assessee contended jurisdiction lies with the ITO, TDS Ward Gurgaon, pointing to change of registered office to Haryana (Company Law Board order and MCA filing), issuance of a new TAN on 04-01-2011 and subsequent filing of TDS returns under the Gurgaon TAN from FY 2011-12. Revenue relied on lower authorities and a High Court decision favoring Revenue on TDS liability for EDC. Tribunal found no dispute on the Gurgaon jurisdictional fact and held the order passed by the ITO, TDS (Delhi) cannot be sustained; it was quashed as 'invalid ab initio'. Merits of the default/deduction issue were not adjudicated in view of the jurisdictional quash; appeal allowed.