TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis. In my opinion, since, the value mentioned in each sale deed is less than ₹ 50 lakhs, therefore, the provisions of Section 194IA will not be applicable to the assessee. Merely because, the seller is the same and the Khasra number of the three properties purchased by the assessee are same, the same cannot be a ground to treat the assessee as an assessee in default when the value mentioned in each sale deed executed on 3 different dates is less than ₹ 50 lakhs. Set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO not to treat the assessee as an assessee in default. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. TDS on Labour payment - payment made by the assessee to labour is below ₹ 20,000/- - CIT(A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the order dated 16.04.2018 of the CIT(Appeals), Meerut relating to AY 2015-16. ITA No. 3921/Del/2018 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2018 of the CIT(Appeals), Meerut relating to F.Y. 2015-16 i.e. AY 2016-17. Since, common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 3920/Del/2018 (FY 2014-15): 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of land, construction and sale of flats etc. During the course of TDS verification the AO observed from the balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 that the assessee has made an advance payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty and, therefore, any number of registries will not save the deductor from his liability to deduct the TDS. He, accordingly, upheld the action of the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. That the AO is in error in holding that TDS is payable @ 1%, when sale deed is made below ₹ 50,00,000/-. Hence, liability of TDS on purchase of land shall not be arises and CIT(A) has not justified in confirming the same. 2. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceedings. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land as per the provisions of Section 194IA had executed the sale deeds in three parts. He, accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find the assessee in the instant case purchased three plots measuring 190.15 sq. mt., 230.45 sq. mt. and 230.45 sq. mt. during FY 2015-16 which were registered on 05.08.2015, 16.06.2015 and 15.06.2015 respectively. The value of each plot was ₹ 44 lakhs. I find the AO held that since all these plots bear the same address and all these have been purchased from the same person by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms (a) and (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; b) immovable property means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building. 10. As per sub-section (2) of Section 194IA no deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than ₹ 50 lakhs. I find, the assessee in instant case had purchased three properties on three different dates, although, they bear the same Khasra number and the seller is the same. This indicates that the assessee had purchased the land on piece meal basis. In my opinion, since, the value mentioned in each sale deed is less than ₹ 50 lakhs, therefore, the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94C the AO held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS @ 2% from the labour payment of ₹ 13,55,585/-. He, accordingly, treated the assessee as an assessee in default for non deduction of tax. 13. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in absence of filing of any details or copy of accounts to justify that assessee has not paid any amount exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in a single day to any person. 14. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find out of the total labour payment of ₹ 27,07,195/- the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
