SUPERTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. JCIT, DELHI

ITA 5453/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Supertech India Private Ltd., which appealed against the penalty imposed by the JCIT, Circle 77(1), New Delhi, for non-deduction of TDS on payments made towards Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) and Infrastructure Advancement Charges (IAC) during the financial year 2015-16. The penalty was based on information received from the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, which mistakenly identified Supertech India Pvt. Ltd. as the entity liable for TDS on payments made to the IDF. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the entity that made the payments in question, leading to the quashing of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785195 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN KUMAR; NEERAJ MANGLA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 133(6); 194C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5453/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Supertech India Private Ltd., 2/19, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi – 110 019. PAN: AAACS0082K Vs. JCIT, Circle 77(1), New Delhi. Assessee by : Shri Praveen Kumar, Advocate & Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Revenue by : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-8/10003/2020-21, filed before him against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the JCIT, Range-77(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5453/Del/2024 2 2. Heard and perused the record. Though ld. DR defends impugned order, on the basis of admitted facts coming from the impugned orders it comes up that the assessee company namely M/s Supertech India Private Limited is engaged in the business of Development of Real Estate and sale of Group Housing at Sonipat and Sohna. A report in this case was received on 01.08.2019 from the Office of JCIT(OSD), TDS Circle, Panchkula, vide F.No. JCIT(OSD)(TDS)/PKL/2019-20 dated 24.07.2019, vide which it was informed that information u/s 133(6) of the Act was received from the IDF under the office of the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, SCO 71-75, Sector-17-C. Chandigarh vide memo No. DTCP3897/2019 dated 21.06.2019 revealing that M/s Supertech India Private Limited, TAN: DELS20996D, had made certain payments in the nature of IDC and IAC during the financial year under consideration. It was further requested that since no TDS has been deducted on these payments, therefore appropriate action u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred as \"the act\") and penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the Act may be initiated for the failure. The JCIT(OSD), TDS Circle, Panchkula, vide his report intimated to AO office that during the survey proceedings, it was gathered that the EDC is covered by either the provision of Section 194C or Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, HUDA has changed the name of the EDC to IDC and IAC and further transferred it to the next office i.e., Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF) for the utilization of that fund under the head naming IAC and IDC where the above named assessee (among the others) failed to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5453/Del/2024 3 deduct TDS on the payment made to IDF. In this case, proceedings u/s 201(1)(1A) of Tax Act, 1961 for FY. 2015-16 was initiated by issuing notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act on 02.08.2019. Subsequently, various notices u/s 201(1)/201(1A) were issued from time to time. During the course of the proceedings, the assessee filed requisite documents/details through his authorized representative which were placed on record and found tenable by AO. Thus vide notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT. Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2021, the assessee was show caused as to why the assessee should not be deemed to be assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on payment made towards IDC/IAC during the FY 2015-16 to HUDA & office of the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. The Assessee filed reply to the show cause notice as under:- “We had approached RTI Act, 2005 under article 19(1) of the constitution & inquired about the payment if any made by Supertech India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s HUDA during the F.Y. 2015-16 and we have received the reply from RTI department wherein they had clearly mentioned that there is no transaction/payment activity during the period and same reply submitted to your goodself department on dated 18.06.2021.” 3. However, AO concluded that as per the detail provided by JCT (OSD), TDS Circle, Panchkula, vide aforesaid letter, it is noticed that the assessee company having TAN: DELS20996D has made the following payments of External Development Charges (EDC) to Director of Town & Country Planning, which is a part of HUDA during the year under consideration:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5453/Del/2024 4 Nature of payment Date of payment Amount (Rs.) EDC payable to DTCP 13.04.2015 1,40,40,278/- 13.04.2015 9,88,63,559/- 13.04.2015 1,48,500/- Total 11,30,52,437/- 4. AO observes that vide letter dated 22.07.2022 issued to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Panchkula, Haryana, AO had sought clarification on the information supplied by them to make verification in the case of M/s Supertech India Pvt. Limited (TAN: DELS20996D). AO also queried that the name of the deductor assessee mentioned in shared information is Supertech Limited having TAN:MRTS02640B, hence, both the entities appears to be different having different TAN/PAN/Name as well as territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the office of the DCIT, TDS Circle, Panchkula, Haryana was requested to clarify whether the TAN mentioned in his report is correct or not as the same does not pertain to the deductor assessee company whose names are shown in the report. However no reply was received in response of the aforesaid letter. Further, an email dated 22.11.2022 was also sent requesting to send clarification on it. A response letter dated 06.12.2022 was received by AO vide which it was stated as under; “on perusal of this office/survey record, it is found that the information available with this office has already been shared with you vide letter No. 628-32 dated 24.07.2019.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5453/Del/2024 5 5. Further, vide email dated 20.01.2023, it was requested by AO to clarify whether the TAN mentioned in their report is correct or not as the same does not pertain to the deductor assessee company whose name is shown in the report in the case of Supertech Limited. In the response to the same, the DCIT (TDS), Circle Panchkula has submitted as under: \"the data/information was received in excel format from the IDF under the office of the DTCP, Haryana, SCO 71-75, Sector-17C, Chandigarh vide memo No DTCP3897/2019 dated 21.06.2019. The same data/information was disseminated to the Jurisdictional TDS AOs. The record as available with this office in the said case has been again checked and no information other than the original information shared with you (vide letter No. 628- 632 dated 24.07.2019) is available with this office. Moreover, the same has already been communicated vide letter No. 556 dated 06.12.2022\" 6. AO observes that his office vide letter dated 09.02.2023 issued to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Panchkula, requested once again for clarification regarding TAN, Address, TDS jurisdiction of the deductor by whom the payments of External Development Charges (EDC) to Director of Town & Country Planning. Haryana, has been made. In response, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Panchkula, relied on its previous reply dated 06.12.2022. 7. In view of the above to protect interest of revenue, the AO, held that he has no option but to levy TDS liability as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the payments made by the deductor having TAN: DELS20996D to the DTCP, Haryana towards External Development Charges (EDC) amounting to Rs.11,30,52,437/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5453/Del/2024 6 8. Same set of RTI information is relied before us by ld. Counsel and which leaves no doubt in the mind of this bench that assesse is not the entity for which information was received yet very arbitrarily the impugned order is passed. There is no provision in law to levy any liability for mere purpose of protecting interest of revenue. Being quasi judicial authority the findings should be conclusive and reasoned. Thus we allow the appeal and quash the impugned penalty. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "