Rashmi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Tax Already Paid, Offline Form 26A Cannot Create Default: Jaipur ITAT Deletes ₹1.15 Lakh Property TDS Demand
Summary: The assessee, Rashmi Singh, purchased an immovable property on 2 January 2019 for a total consideration of ₹66,20,435. Since the consideration exceeded ₹50 lakh, the transaction attracted TDS at 1% u/s 194-IA. However, the assessee did not deduct TDS of ₹66,204 while making payment to the seller.
The AO initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) & 201(1A). The assessee relied upon the first proviso to section 201(1), contending that the seller had already included the property consideration in his return of income & discharged the corresponding tax liability. A Chartered Accountant-certified Form 26A was also furnished as evidence of compliance by the seller.
The AO rejected the assessee’s contention, treated her as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) & raised TDS demand of ₹66,204. Interest of ₹48,990 u/s 201(1A) was also levied, resulting in a total demand of ₹1,15,194. The matter was additionally referred for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271C.
The CIT(A) confirmed the demand. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Jaipur Tribunal.
The order contains an apparent typographical reference to the purchase date as 20 December 2009 & TDS amount as ₹66,20,435. However, the Tribunal’s undisputed factual finding records the relevant purchase date as 2 January 2019, while the grounds correctly identify the TDS amount as ₹66,204.
Issue before the Tribunal
The principal issue was whether the assessee could be denied protection under the first proviso to section 201(1) merely because the Chartered Accountant-certified Form 26A was furnished manually or offline instead of electronically in the prescribed manner.
