Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 994 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194-IA - demand u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) - assessee buyer/transferee has not deducted tax in the hands of the Joint Owners of the property but deducted in the hand of POA holder - demand raised @ 20% applying Section 206AA - HELD THAT:- Even though the admitted position is that the assessee buyer/transferee has not deducted tax in the hands of the Joint Owners of the property, still we note that sub-section(2) of sec. 194-IA provides an exception from deducting tax of 1% of the sale consideration, when the sale consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than ₹ 50 lacs. Therefore, in the instant case, we note that the total sale consideration is only ₹ 60,12,000/- and the admitted fact as taken note by AO & Ld. CIT(A) is that Shri Anant Ram Kumawat and Smt. Seema Kumawat are the co-owners, and jointly owning the immovable property. So, the sale consideration has to be divided equally into two by virtue of sec. 46 of the Transfer of Property Act which prescribed that where immovable property is transferred for a consideration by persons having distinct interest therein. In this case consideration for each transferor comes to ₹ 30,06,000/- each, which is below the prescribed limit of ₹ 50 lacs given by the statute as aforesaid and, therefore, in the light of the same, we are of the opinion in the facts as discussed, supra, that the provisions of sec. 194 IA are not applicable In any case, we note that when the department was knowing the PAN details of the Power of Attorney holder Shri Vijay Kumawat who was none other than the son and brother of the Joint Owners Shri Anant Ram Kumawat and Smt. Seema Kumawat the AO could have easily found out whether these co-owners have reflected the sale consideration as discussed above in their respective Return of Income, if he had made some enquiry or referred the case to the AO who has jurisdiction over the POA holder Shri Vijay Kumawat, (who had obtained the entire sale consideration in his bank account or as to whether POA has shown it as his capital gain or not). Then only picture would be clear and the apprehension of income/gain escaping from the hands of co-owners could have been easily addressed rather than finding fault with the assessee’s omission of not doing due diligence to track down the PAN details of the co-owners of the immovable property and in any case the department is now also empowered to find out the reality of the facts discussed above if the statute permits and in accordance to law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in this case, sec. 194-IA of the Act is not applicable and we find force in the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal which is hereby allowed and addition is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
|