Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 744/Hyd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Frontiers Infra Projects India VS. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AABCF 3873 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Sri P. Suresh, DR Date of hearing: 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement: 20/09/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad in appeal No. 17719/CIT(A)-8/Hyd/2019-20, dated 18/08/2020 passed U/s. 200A r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. This assessee’s appeal is filed with a delay of 44 days. Considering the Pandemic situation, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has grossly erred by not adjudicating the ground no.2 relating to charge of interest for a sum of Rs. 21,245/- U/s. 220(2) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated and allowed the ground no.2 by pronouncing that charge of interest for a sum of Rs. 21,245/- U/s. 220(2) of the Act is unsustainable, as there is no initial demand raised in terms of section 156 of the Act U/s. 201(1) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds on legality, non-adjudication of the ground of appeal as raised on the issue is deemed to have allowed. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground No.3 being the charge of interest of Rs. 2,985/- U/s. 201(1A) of the Act, without there being short deposit of TDS deducted / collected. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the ground by deleting the charge of interest U/s. 201(1A) of the Act as there is no outstanding / short deposit of any TDS amount. 7. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the interest U/s. 220(2) of the Act as on November, 2020 is at Rs. 28,725/-. 8. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at any time of hearing of the appeal.”
The brief facts are that for the A.Y. 2015-16 the Ld. Assessing Officer (TDS, CPC, Ghaziabad) passed order U/s. 200A of the Act wherein the Ld. A.O. levied late fee of Rs. 54,250/- U/s. 234E; Interest of Rs. 21,245/- U/s. 220(2) and Rs. 2,958/- U/s. 201(1A) (Col.3(b)) as interest on late payment of TDS in Quarter 1, 2 and 3 of the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and granted relief to the assessee in respect of levy of late fee U/s. 234E. However,
the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s ground relating to levy of interest on late payment U/s. 201(1A) of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground raised by the assessee relating to levy of interest U/s. 220(2) of the Act and therefore the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard. Ld. AR further submitted that while passing the order, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground relating to levy of interest U/s. 220(2) of the Act. In respect of interest on late payment U/s. 201(1A) did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence filed before him. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground relating to levy of interest U/s. 220(2) of the Act. Further, Ld. AR submitted before us that if an opportunity is provided before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is ready to demonstrate along with documentary evidence that the principal amount is not due. In this situation, we are of the view
considering the issues involved in the appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, the entire matter is required to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in order to consider the issues afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is hereby Ordered accordingly. At the same breath, We also caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 20th September, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 20th September, 2021.
OKK Copy to:-
1) M/s. Frontiers Infra Projects India Private Limited, C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Officer of the ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad. 4) The CIT (TDS), Hyderabad. (ii) Pr. CIT-8, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File