SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (O.S.D)(TDS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3777/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was rejected on a technicality without providing an opportunity to correct the mistake. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits after providing a hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on a technical ground regarding the mention of the assessment year instead of the financial year. The assessee argued that for TDS matters, the financial year is relevant and was correctly mentioned. The assessee also raised grounds regarding the validity of an order passed without notice and opportunity of hearing, and demands under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), and penalty under section 271C.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed on a technical ground without a hearing, and whether the demands and penalty were validly raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 271C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade
For Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Ld. Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Mysore, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The following grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below ;-

2 Misinterpretation of financial year ('FY') as assessment year ('AY')

1.

The Hon'ble NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was mistake in mentioning the AY as 2018-19 instead of AY 2019-20 while filing the appeal.

1A. The Hon'ble NFAC erred in not appreciating that since the appeal relates to the TDS matter, the appeal has been filed under the FY tab and accordingly, the appeal has been correctly filed for FY 2018-19 (and not AY 2018-19). Failure to adjudicate appeal on merits of the case

2.

The Hon'ble NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case.

Order is invalid

3.

The Hon'ble NFAC erred in not appreciating that the order dated 21 November 2022 was passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act without serving the notices and without providing an opportunity of being heard. Further, as the said order was also not received by the Appellant, the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore ought to be quashed.

Demand under section 201(1) of the Act

4.

The Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not deleting demand of Rs. 10,44,835 under section 201(1) of the Act. 4A. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the Appellant has already paid taxes on the said provision in subsequent year.

Demand under section 201(1A) of the Act

5.

The Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not deleting demand of Rs. 4,70,176 under section 201(1A) of the Act.

3 5A. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble NFAC erred in not appreciating that the applicable interest under section 201(1A) of the Act has already been paid. Penalty

6.

The learned TDS Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act. General

7.

Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.

8.

The Appellant reserves the right to amend, alter, add or delete the above grounds of appeal.

2.

At the outset, I noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) on a technical consideration, but again the fact remains that before dismissing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the assessee to correct the inadvertent mistake, if any. However, from the records, Ld. AR has successfully proved from Form-36 that the financial year has correctly been mentioned.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the assessee, I find that the appeal of the assessee had been rejected merely on a technical consideration. Therefore, while setting aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the same on merits after holding opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Before parting, I make it clear that the decision to 4. restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be 4 construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026 (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27/07/2026 Z.U., PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत ////

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →