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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 174/DDN/2019 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.

ITA No. 174/DDN/2019

parte qua assessee after hearing learned Departmental

Representative and based on materials on record.

“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.”

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

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 174/DDN/2019

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

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 174/DDN/2019

providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Accordingly, grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT

Dated: 22/06/2023 *aks/-

4 | P a g e