SIVAGURUNATHAN AISHWARYA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TDA, CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 915/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 October 2023AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in film production, failed to remit deducted TDS. The AO passed an order for short deduction and interest. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay and lack of a condonation petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without providing a reasonable opportunity for condonation. Whether principles of natural justice were violated by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(2A),Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 17.10.2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.07.2023, and pertains to assessment years 2016-17

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Ms.Sivagurunathan Aiswarya, Proprietor of Shri Sairam Creations, Chennai, is assessed to Tax

Ms.Shivagurunathan Aishwarya :: 2 ::

Deduction at Source (in short “TDS") under the jurisdiction of the DCIT, TDS Cirlce-1(1), Chennai. The assessee is engaged in the business of production of feature films. During the course of TDS survey u/s.133(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act") on 08.03.2018, it was seen that the assessee has deducted TDS on various payments, but not remitted into the Government of India Account. Therefore, the AO has passed an order u/s.201 & 201(1A) of the Act on 26.03.2018, and computed short deduction of TDS and interest thereon. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority and filed appeal on 31.05.2022.

The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that although, there is a huge delay of 1492 days in filing of the appeal, but the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.

Therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted for want of proper petition for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without giving proper opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice and also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted for want of proper petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, he submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to go back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and file proper petition for condonation of delay.

Ms.Shivagurunathan Aishwarya :: 3 ::

4.

The ld.Sr.DR, Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee is casual in his approach before the First Appellate Authority, which is evident from the fact that neither the assessee has mentioned the delay in Form No.35 nor filed any petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted in absence of proper petition for condonation of delay. It was the arguments of the assessee that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notice u/s.250 of the Act, dated 18.07.2023 specifically pointing out the discrepancy of delay in filing of the appeal and asked the assessee to submit the reasons along with condonation petition by 24.07.2023. Since, the assessee has not filed any submissions, on 25.07.2023 the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

From the above, it is abundantly clear that the Ld.CIT(A) has given only one opportunity of hearing to the assessee with a short notice of ‘7’ days to submit petition for condonation of delay and also explain the reasons for such delay. In our considered view, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, we set aside the order of Ms.Shivagurunathan Aishwarya :: 4 :: the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the appeal including delay in filing of the appeal in light of condonation petition, if any, may be filed by the assessee with reasons for delay and also decide the issue involved in the appeal on merits.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 17th day of October, 2023, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →