TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged under S.201(1A) for Rs. 58,306 which ought to be on higher side and wrongly calculated which was upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as in the case of appellant wife the same is calculated at Rs. 7843/- on identical facts of the case may be sent back to the file of AO to recalculate the same in the interest of justice or restrict the till filing of IT Return by the appellant. 2. That NFAC Delhi in para 6.24 specifically directed to verify form number 26A in spite of that Ld. AO TDS Ward1, Ahmedabad without looking in to the judgment and direction case hurriedly passed order giving effect of CIT (Appeals) and confirmed demand of Rs. 64,666 under S.201(1) of IT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: 'B', NEW DELHI ITA No. 2736/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2014-15 VINOD SONI AND OTHERS Lrd AO TDS-1, Ahmedabad in order dated 17-11-2021 in para 3.2 also reproduced the appellant submission [Relevant Page 74 of Paper Book] Lrd CIT (NFAC) Delhi AO TDS-1, Ahmedabad in order datd 17-11-2021 in para 5.4 also reproduced the appellant submission [Relevant Page 8 and 24 of Paper Book] Both the lower authorities have failed to consider the above decision which may be considered while deciding this appeal in the interest of justice. Your appellant says that this judgment was referred before the Assessing Officer as well before the CIT (NFAC) Delhi being implied ground may be admitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer was not right in making demand in respect of interest charged under Section 201(1A) for Rs. 58,306/- which ought to be on higher side and wrongly calculated which was upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi as in the case of assessee's wife the same is calculated at Rs. 7,843/- on identical facts of the case. Thus, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to recalculate the same in the interest of justice. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) directed to verify From No. 26A in spite of that the Assessing Officer (TDS) without looking into the judgment and direction case hurriedly passed order giving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/-, therefore, both seller and purchaser was under bonafide impression that threshold limit for TDS is Rs. 50,00,000/- and no TDS is required to be deducted. The Ld. A.R's contention was considered by the CIT(A) and it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee did not deduct tax at source of the property despite the fact that the aggregate consideration paid by the assessee to all the three co-owners has exceed the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The observation of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not filed Form No. 26A alongwith certificate of the Chartered Accountant appears to be correct and thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the condition of Section 201 of the Act. In respect of interest liability under Section 201(1A) the sai....