2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 13159
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (JODHPUR BENCH)
RENU MISHRA UDAIPUR – Appellant
Versus
ITO TDS UDAIPUR UDAIPUR – Respondent
ITA 1001/JODH/2025[2019-20]
##PAGE1##
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025
(Assessment Year 2019-20)
Renu Mishra ITO TDS, Udaipur
3 D 32, Sector-7
Rajasthan-313002
PAN-AGXPM9197R
Assessee by Shri Brijesh Mishra (Physically)
Revenue by Smt. Ayushi Sharma JCIT-DR
(Virtually)
Date of Hearing 07 / 05 / 2026.
Date of Pronouncement 20 / 05 / 2026.
ORDER
DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Commissioner of
Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to
as the JCIT(A)] dated 17.09.2025 with respect to assessment year 2019-20
challenging therein rejection of request for change of head TDS instead
of advance tax and condonation of penalty demand of Rs. 1,08,000/-.
2. At the outset, the appellant assessee has submitted that she has
purchased an immovable property worth Rs. 60,51,000/- from Mr.
##PAGE2##2
ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025
(Assessment Year 2019-20)
Prakash Chandani on 05.09.2018. A letter for verification of TDS
deduction as per the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act was issued to
the appellant. The AO has passed an order under Section 201 of the Act
on 18.03.2025 by holding the assessee in default for non-deduction of
TDS under Section 194IA for the purchase of immovable property worth
Rs. 60,51,000/- and raised demand of Rs. 1,08,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant
preferred the e-appeals scheme, 2023, notified by the Central board of
Direct Tax. The appellate proceedings were transferred to the
Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana. The Ld. JCIT(A) has rejected the claim of
the assessee vide para 6.3 and 6.4 of the impugned order by observing as
under:-
6.3 On the perusal of the order passed u/s 201 and the written
submissions along with document's submitted by the appellant, it is
noted that the appellant has purchased an immovable property from the
seller Mr. Prakash Chandarni (PAN: AGMPC5959J) worth Rs.
60,51,000/- on 05.10.2018 and accordingly as per the provisions of
section 1941A of the Act, she was required to deduct TDS @ 1% of the on
the sum paid to the seller at the time of payment, if the transfer of
immovable property is fifty lakh rupees or above. The provisions of
section 1941A of the Act is as under:
##PAGE3##3
ITA No. 1001/Jodh/2025
(Assessment Year 2019-20)
Payment on transfer of certain immovable property other than
agricultural land.
194-IA. (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying (other
than the person referred to in section 194LA) to a resident transferor any
sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property
(other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to
the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in
cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is
earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent. of such sum as income-
tax thereon.
(2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the
consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty
lakh rupees.
(3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to
deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, -
(a) "agricultural land" means agricultural land in India, not being a land
situate in any area referred to in items (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
6.4 On the perusal of the submissions and the payment of tax challan
submitted by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant failed to deduct
tax an amount equal to one percent of such sum of payment for the
purchase of the immovable property as per the provisions of section
1941A of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed
to submit the computation of the capital gain raised from the sell of the
##PAGE4##