M/S. UNITTAS MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals ADDL/JCIT(A) Ranchi[hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”], dated 09.01.2026 confirming the order framed u/s. 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2022-23.

ITA No 908/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) M/s Unittas Multispeciality Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs ITO TDS W :: 2 :: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/deductor is running a hospital. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had disclosed an amount of Rs.1,60,25,794/- in Form No. 3CD under the head “Payment on which TDS not deducted”. On the basis of the said information, show-cause notice under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), was issued to the assessee on 07.06.2024 calling for the relevant details and explanation. In response thereto, the assessee uploaded the details called for and admitted that during the relevant assessment year, tax was not deducted at source in respect of doctor fees of Rs.77,72,900/-, rent of Rs.21,69,320/-, advertisement expenses of Rs.26,71,330/-, professional fees paid to lawyer of Rs.9,25,000/- and security charges of Rs.3,31,226/-. It was further stated that the assessee had made a disallowance of 30% of the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.48,07,738/-.The Assessing Officer, thereafter, passed an order under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act, treating the assessee as being in default in respect of the tax allegedly deductible but not deducted/remitted, and raised total demand of Rs.15,23,059/- comprising TDS and interest. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).It is evident from the impugned appellate order that the assessee failed to comply with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) on the date fixed, i.e., 07.01.2025. The ld. CIT(A), taking note of the alleged statutory violation relating to deduction/remittance of TDS and the non- compliance on the part of the assessee, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the total demand of Rs.15,23,059/-

ITA No 908/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) M/s Unittas Multispeciality Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs ITO TDS W :: 3 :: comprising TDS and interest. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 4. The assessee has challenged the action of the lower authorities before us. However, from the material available on record, it appears that the assessee did not effectively comply with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the factual and legal contentions of the assessee could not be properly examined by the first appellate authority. The assessee has, inter alia, placed on record that certain payments were reported in Form No. 3CD as payments on which TDS was not deducted and that a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) had also been made. However, the effect of such disallowance, the actual liability under sections 201 and 201(1A), the applicability of the relevant TDS provisions to each category of payment and other factual aspects require proper examination. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee itself had disclosed in Form No. 3CD that TDS had not been deducted on various payments and had also admitted the non- deduction of TDS in its response to the show-cause notice. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the assessee as being in default and raising the demand under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act was justified. It was further submitted that the assessee had failed to comply with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the dismissal of the appeal was justified. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the

ITA No 908/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) M/s Unittas Multispeciality Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs ITO TDS W :: 4 :: assessment order as well as the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).It is apparent from the record that the proceedings under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act originated from the disclosure made by the assessee in Form No. 3CD regarding payments on which TDS had allegedly not been deducted. The assessee, in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, had also furnished details of certain payments and admitted non- deduction of TDS thereon. However, the issue before us is not merely whether certain payments were disclosed in Form No. 3CD or whether there was non-deduction of TDS. The precise tax liability under section 201, as well as the consequential interest liability under section 201(1A), requires examination with reference to the nature and recipient of each payment, the applicable TDS provisions, the date and extent of default, and the other relevant facts and explanations furnished by the assessee. We further note that the assessee had also stated that it had made a disallowance of 30% of the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The effect and relevance of such disallowance, if any, on the liability under sections 201 and 201(1A), as well as the other factual and legal contentions of the assessee, require examination by the first appellate authority. From the impugned order, however, it appears that the ld. CIT(A) has principally proceeded on the basis of the assessee's failure to comply with the appellate proceedings and has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on that basis. There is no effective adjudication of the various factual and legal aspects arising from the payments in question. Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the demand confirmed is substantial, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the matter

ITA No 908/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) M/s Unittas Multispeciality Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs ITO TDS W :: 5 :: is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 7. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim or on the correctness of the demand raised under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issue afresh after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant details and documentary evidence in support of its contentions, including details of the recipients of the payments, nature and dates of payments, applicable TDS provisions, tax deduction/remittance details, if any, and details concerning the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal afresh after considering the submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 10th day of August,2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No 908/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) M/s Unittas Multispeciality Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs ITO TDS W :: 6 :: चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 10th August 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF SAND Digitally signed by EEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMA Date: 2026.08.11 R 17:42:43 +05'30'