Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The AO issued notices dated 11.12.2018 and 26.08.2019, proposing to invoke section 201(1)/201(1A) for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194IA. The assessee, in reply dated 01.01.2019, submitted that both lands were agricultural lands and not subject to TDS under section 194IA. It was also contended that the consideration paid to each individual seller was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The AO obtained confirmations from AUDA and GUDA. GUDA, vide letter dated 17.07.2021, stated that the Shiholi land is 2.61 km from the Gandhinagar Municipal limits. AUDA confirmed that the Vastral land is within Ahmedabad Municipality. Based on these reports, the AO held that both properties are "urban lands" within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) and not agricultural. Further, since the assessee's share in both transactions exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, section 194IA was held applicable. The AO computed the default and interest as under:

Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16

6. The AR emphasized that the entire amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- paid by the assessee in the Shiholi transaction was distributed between two landowners, namely:

• Smt. Manjulaben Trikamlal - Rs. 25,00,000/-, and • Smt. Joshi Padmaben Somnath - Rs. 45,00,000/-, both of which are individually below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 194IA(2). Similarly, for the Vastral transaction, the assessee paid Rs. 1,13,33,336/- to eight different co-owners of land, and in each case, the individual payment was only Rs. 14,16,667/-, as detailed in the submission. Therefore, in no case was payment to any individual seller more than Rs. 50 lakhs. The AR submitted that as per the settled legal position, section 194IA is attracted only where consideration paid to a particular seller exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, and the threshold under section 194IA(2) must be tested with reference to each individual transferor-transferee pair, not with reference to the total transaction value or the composite sale deed. The AR relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval v. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad, ITA No. 1465/Ahd/2024, order dated 02.04.2025, wherein one of the co-owners of the very same Shiholi land had been held to be not liable under section 194IA for failure to deduct TDS, on the ground that no individual seller had received more than Rs. 50 lakhs. It was further submitted, by way of written submission, that the AO failed to consider whether the payees (sellers) had declared such receipts in their income-tax returns and paid taxes thereon. The first proviso to section 201(1) and the Explanation to section 191 required the AO to make such verification before treating the assessee as "assessee in default". The AR prayed for deletion of the demand raised under section 201(1)/201(1A).

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on record. The facts are not in dispute. The contention of the assessee is that the amount paid to each seller was less than Rs.50,00,000/- , and therefore, the provisions of section 194IA of the Act were not attracted. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval v. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad, ITA No. 1465/Ahd/2024, order dated 02.04.2025 where the Co- ordinate bench after relying on various decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench [Bhikhabhai H. Patel vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1680/Ahd/2018, order dated 31.01.2020) and Vinod Soni v. ITO (ITA No. 2736/Del/2015 order dated 10.12.2018)] held that for the purposes of section 194IA of the Act, the threshold of Rs.50 lakhs is to be examined with reference to each transferee and each transferor individually. Where the amount paid to any one transferor is below Rs.50 lakhs, the transferee is not obliged to deduct tax under section 194IA of the Act. The relevant paras of the order are reproduced herewith for the sake of clarity -

9.1. During the course of hearing before us, the AR of the assessee confined his arguments to the issue that the provisions of section 194IA of the Act were not applicable in view of the fact that the amount paid to each seller in the transaction was below Rs.50,00,000, even though the assessee's share in the total transaction exceeded the threshold. The AR also contended that the amendment made by way of insertion of a proviso to sub-section (2) of section 194IA of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2024 with effect from 1st October 2024, is not applicable to the present year under appeal (AY 2015-16). Nevertheless, the AR placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Bhikhabhai H. Patel vs. DCIT (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench, following the decision in the case of Vinod Soni v. ITO (supra), held that for the purpose of section 194IA of the Act, the threshold of Rs.50 lakhs is to be examined with reference to each transferee-transferor pair individually, and that where the consideration paid to each seller is below Rs.50 lakhs, the provisions of section 194IA of the Act are not attracted.