Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Spring Hospital, Vs. ACIT, Christian Colony, Circle-14(1) (TDS), Karimnagar. Hyderabad. PAN: ABWFS 4150 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram Date of hearing: 16/03/2020 Date of pronouncement: 20/03/2020 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. 0052/CIT(A)- 8/Hyd/2013-14, dated 10/04/2017 passed U/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in holding that the provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are applicable to the payment of interest to Reliance Capital Limited particularly when the recipient admitted the amount as part of its income in the return of income filed. 4. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. ACIT, TDS Circle treated the assessee in default for non-deduction of tax U/s. 201(1) r.w.s 194A of the Act and levied interest U/s. 201(1A) of the Act, however the recipient Reliance Capital Limited had admitted the same as their income in their return of income. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld AO in order to provide one more opportunity to examine the issue and pass appropriate order. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that several opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, we do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR that the recipient had included the interest paid by the assessee in their return of income and therefore interest U/s. 201(1A) would not be applicable, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO in order to consider the issue afresh after verification of the facts and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merits. At the same breath, we also hereby 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. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 20th March, 2020.