BAAKIR REAL ESTATES PVT LTD,DELHI V. ITO WARD-73(3), DELHI

ITA 3265/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Baakir Real Estates Private Limited appealing against the order of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh, which confirmed the demand raised by the Assessing Officer under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The demand was based on the non-deduction of TDS on payments made to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for External Development Charges (EDC). The primary contention was whether the payment was made and claimed as an expense by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834290 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Puri Constructions Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH GUPTA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 201(1); 133A; 194C

Judgement Text

"16IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.3265/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Baakir Real Estates Private Limited, 232-B, Fourth Floor, Phase III, Okhla Industrial Estate, Delhi-110020 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-73(3), Room No.402, Fourth Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi-110092 PAN-AADCB1340G Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent/Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Adv. Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 10.03.2025 of learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 24.02.2023 passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3265/Del/2025 Page 2 of 4 2. The only issue in this appeal is against order of learned CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in raising demand of Rs.21,839/- under section 201(1) and demand of Rs.17,908/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessing Officer received an information from DCIT, TDS Circle, Panchkula, whereby a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried in the office premise of Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short ‘HUDA’) by the TDS Wing of Panchkula on 09.02.2017 and 14.02.2017. During the course of survey, the survey team noted that HUDA has received External Development Charges (in short ‘EDC’) from private builders without deducting TDS, the Assessing Officer noted that that the assessee has made payment of Rs.10,91,970/- to HUDA as EDC without deducting TDS thereon. The details are as under:- Nature of payment Date of payment Amount (Rs.) TDS deducted (Rs.) EDC amount paid to HUDA 10.05.2016 10,91,970 NIL Total 10,91,970 NIL 4. Therefore, the Assessing Officer taken the assessee under default under section 201(1) qua TDS deductible @2% under section 194C at Rs.21,839/-. The Assessing Officer also charged interest under section 201(1A) @1% per month at Rs.17,908/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3265/Del/2025 Page 3 of 4 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) stated that this payment is neither paid nor claimed as expenses i.e. EDC charges but the ld. CIT(A) has not considered this and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P.(C) No.9483/2019 and CM APPL 39041/2019 dated 13.02.2024 stated that the assessee is in default. 6. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Now before us, only claim made by the assessee was that the assessee neither made this payment nor claimed as expenses and when this was confronted to the ld. Sr. DR, she only requested that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and she principally agreed that in case the payment is not made by the assessee and not claimed as expenses in its books of accounts, the Assessing Officer will allow the claim of the assessee. 8. After hearing both the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with specific direction that the Assessing Officer will very whether the assessee has made payment of this EDC Charges and claimed deduction or not. In case, the assessee has claimed deduction, the Assessing Officer will disallow and in case, the assessee has not claimed in its books of accounts, the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3265/Del/2025 Page 4 of 4 Officer will not make any disallowance. In terms of the above, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [MAHAVIR SINGH] [AMITABH SHUKLA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 04.02.2026 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "