DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICE,ALMORA vs. ITO - TDS, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/DDN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 June 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and did not properly appreciate the facts. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS returns late, leading to a late filing fee under Section 234E and interest under Section 220(2). The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity of being heard and correctly appreciating the facts regarding late filing fee and interest?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200,Section 200A,Section 234E,Section 220(2),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma
Hearing: 22.06.2023Pronounced: 22.06.2023

Assessment Year: 2017-18 District Programme Office, Versus Income-tax Officer(TDS), Vikas Bhawan, Almora. Haldwani. PAN:MRTDQ1538F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of pronouncement: 22.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 05.08.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Haldwani for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice of hearing being issued through registered post. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on materials on record.

3.

The effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under :

“1. Due to incompetency of the staff, the TDS returns has not been filed on prescribed time that leads to the late fee and interest penalty. 2. The staff does not have any special knowledge regarding the income tax filing and other procedure, so due to this most of the time the return filed were not proper and leads to the income tax penalty. 3. Due to non-availability of order u/s 200A of I.T. Act 1961 at the time of CIT (Appeals), the appeal has been rejected.”

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused materials on record. As can be seen from the facts on record, there was delay on the part of the assessee in furnishing TDS statements as required under section 200 of the Act. Therefore, while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer charged late filing fee under section 234E of the Act and further levied interest under section 220(2) of the Act. Against the order passed under section 200A of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, the appeal was dismissed in limine, as not maintainable, by learned first appellate authority on the ground that the assessee has challenged a notice issued under section 226(3) of the Act, against which, appeal does not lie under section 246A of the Act. On perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that he has not provided any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Though, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that the matter was discussed with the counsel of the assessee over phone, however, no effective hearing was afforded to the assessee.

A perusal of the memorandum of appeal filed before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in Form No. 35, clearly reveals that the dispute in appeal are the late filing fee under section 234E and interest charged under section 220(2) of the Act. Even, the grounds raised before us also reveal that the dispute is with regard to the order passed under section 200A of the Act. Since, learned first appellate authority has decided the appeal ex parte without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and has also not properly appreciated the facts, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to his file for de novo adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Accordingly, grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 200

All 92 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →