Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has purchased a property jointly with his wife and two partners namely Dalpat Singh Nanecha and Reetu Devi Nanecha on 03.09.2014 from UIT, Bhilwara for a consideration of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-. It was submitted that the assessee was only a joint owner of the property to the extent of ¼ share in the property and consideration of the property in the hands of the assessee was only Rs. 31,50,000/- which is less than Rs. 50 lacs, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 194IA of the Act, there was no requirement to deduct tax at source while making payment to UIT, Bhilwara. It was accordingly submitted that the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act are not applicable in the case and the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default in respect of non-deduction of tax. In support, reliance was placed on Jaipur Bench decision in case of Smt. Sandhya Gugalia Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITA No. 77 & 78/JP/2018 dated 08.06.2018) and Delhi Bench decision in case of Vinod Soni vs. ITO, TDS (ITA No. 2736- 2739/DEL/2015 dated 10.12.2018). It was submitted that both the lower authorities have not properly appreciated the provisions of Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) Section 194IA of the Act and has wrongly held the assessee to be in default and raised demand of Rs. 31,500/- and Rs. 16,380/- U/s 201(1) and 201(IA) of the Act which deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the finding of the lower authorities and submitted that as per information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has purchased an immovable property on 03.09.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- from UIT, Bhilwara and as per OLTAS, no tax was deducted U/s 194IA of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was issued a show-cause notice U/s 201 dated 12.01.2017 and thereafter, on 12.01.2018 and after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has held the assessee to be in default within the meaning of Section 201 of the Act. It was submitted that in the instant case, the assessee has failed to deduct tax @ 1% at the time of payment of his share to the transfer of the property as per provisions of Section 194IA of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee has committed default for non- deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 31,50,000/- which is ¼ of the total consideration of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-, being the assessee's share in the property. It was submitted that in case of joint owners of the property, the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- is to be determined property-wise and not transferee-wise and the number of buyers and sellers would not matter at all and so long as the value of the property is more than Rs 50 lacs, the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act are applicable. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order so passed by the Assessing Officer which has been rightly confirmed by the ld.

6. As held in the aforesaid decision, on harmonious reading of both sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 194IA, the provisions provides that any person responsible for paying to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property exceeding Rs 50 lacs shall be liable for deduction of tax at source at the Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) rate of one percent of such sum. In the instant case, undisputedly, the total consideration for acquisition of the immovable property has been agreed at Rs 1,26,00,000/-, at the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the assessee's share in the said immoveable property is only 1/4 th and the assessee is thus responsible for paying consideration of Rs 31,50,000/-. Further, as evident from the findings of the AO where he has held the assessee to be in default for non- deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 31,50,000/- which is ¼ of the total consideration of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-, being the assessee's share in the property and determining TDS default to the tune of Rs. 31,500/-, being 1% of Rs 31,50,000/-, the assessee has actually paid Rs 31,50,000/- only. Therefore, in the instant case, where the assessee is responsible for paying Rs 31,50,000/- being the consideration for his share in the property and has actually paid Rs 31,50,000/- only, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source in terms of section 194IA of the Act.

Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) "5.2 After perusing the Paper Book and the relevant provisions of law, we find that Section 194-IA(2) provides that Section 194-

IA(1) will not applicable where the consideration for transfer of immovable property is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. However, section 194-IA(1) is applicable on any person being a transferee, so section 194-IA(2) is also, obviously, applicable only w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed. In the instant case there are 04 separate transferees and the sale consideration w.r.t. each transferee is Rs. 37,50,000/-, hence, less than Rs. 50,00,000/- each. Each transferee is a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person. It is also noted that Section 194-IA was introduced by Finance Act, 2013 effective from 1.6.2013. It is also noted from the Memorandum explaining the provisions brought out alongwith the Finance Bill wherein it was stated that "in order to reduce the compliance burden on the small tax payers, it is further proposed that no deduction of tax under this provision shall be made where the total amount of consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakhs rupees." We further find that the main reason by the AO is that the amount as per sale deed is Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The law cannot be interpreted and applied differently for the same transaction, if carried out in different ways. The point to be made is that, the law cannot be read as that in case of four separate purchase deed for four persons separately, Section 194-IA was not applicable, and in case of a single purchase deed for four persons Section 194-IA will be applicable. It is noted that AO has passed a common order u/s. 201(1) for all the four transferees. In order to justify his action since in case of separate orders for each transferee separately, apparently, provisions of section 194IA could not had been made applicable since in each case purchase consideration is only Rs. 37,50,000/-. This action of AO shows that he was also clear in his mind that with reference to each transferee, Section 194IA was not applicable. Hence, we are of Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) the considered view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus the same is deleted. As far as issue of charging interest is concerned, the same is consequential in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. As regards the case laws cited by the Ld. DR are concerned, the same are on distinguished facts and therefore, not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stand allowed and as a result thereof, the appeal of the assessee is allowed."