Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 201/201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary and rent, raising a demand of Rs.73,55,002/- and Rs.12,047/- respectively. The assessee appealed to the JCIT(A), who granted partial relief on salary TDS but sustained the addition for rent TDS.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not fully participate in the assessment and appellate proceedings, and requested video conferencing which was denied. Considering the facts and the issue of short TDS deduction, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard during assessment and appellate proceedings, and whether the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
201, 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Tempiindia Staffing Services Private Limited, vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, G – 118, Sushant Lok Phase 3, Gurgaon. Sector 56, Near Boomansal Plaza Mall, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : RTKT03513G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date of Order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Addl./Joint CIT (Appeals)-3, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT (A)] dated 02.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings under section 201/201 (1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for short deduction of TDS on salary and rent. After issue of several notices and non-receipt of any compliance from the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the demand of Rs.73,55,002/- towards deduction of salary and Rs.12,047/- for short deduction of rent.
Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. JCIT (A)-3, Bangalore and ld. JCIT (A) issued notices for hearing on two occasions. In response, assessee has submitted written submissions. Based on the above written submissions, ld. JCIT(A) has given partial relief to the assessee of short deduction of salary and sustained the addition of short deduction of rent. It was submitted that ld. JCIT (A) has completed the assessment without granting video conferencing and rejecting of submissions before him and it was prayed that ld. JCIT (A) should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the above submissions and submitted that assessee has not utilised the opportunities given during assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.
Considered the submissions of ld. DR of the Revenue and material placed on record. We observe that Assessing Officer has raised the demand based on the material before him without the participation of the assessee even though assessee has not complied by submitting relevant information. Even during appellate proceedings, assessee has asked for video conferencing and the case of the assessee was decided only on the basis of written submissions. After TDS, in our view,, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the submissions, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30TH day of June, 2025 after the conclusion of the hearing.