CITY UNION BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, THRISSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the issues for readjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case, considering the challenges faced due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
What were the facts?
The assessee, City Union Bank Ltd., filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The appeals concerned demands raised under Section 201(1) for failure to deduct tax under Section 194A.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A) due to circumstances arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George Mathan, JM
Per: Bench These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in appeal Nos. ITA.10014/2019-20, 10015/2019-20 & 10016/2019-20 dated 31.05.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17.
The issue in these appeals are in respect of demand created under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax under Section 194A of the Act.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. appeared on behalf of Revenue.
It was submitted by the assessee in its grounds that on account of Covid second wave during April and May, 2021 the employees of the assessee were compelled to work from home and consequently could not assist the Counsel in representing appeals before the learned CIT(A). It was the submission that if the assessee is given adequate opportunity the assessee would be able to substantiate their case. to 104/Coch/2021 2 City Union Bank Ltd.
The learned D.R. submitted that notices have been issue through e- mail and there was no response from the assessee. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the orders of the learned CIT(A).
A perusal of para4, page 14 of the order of the CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has been issued notices in April and May, 2021 and one notice for February, 2021. Admittedly this was a period when the Covid lockdown was present and most of the employees were on work from home. This being so, in the interest of justice we feel that the assessee must be granted adequate opportunity to substantiate its case and consequently the orders of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issues are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 8th November, 2021.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026