PATIALA MOTION PICTURES,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA, PUNJAB

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.532/Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Patiala Motion Pictures बनाम The ITO 24, Sant Enclave, Near Guru Nanak Ward-4, Patiala Foundation School, Patiala, Punjab Punjab-147001 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AASFP5165H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/07/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/07/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer had treated the assessee as an assessee in default for alleged short deduction/non-deduction of tax at source and raised a demand of Rs.7,52,170/- under section 201(1) along with interest of Rs.5,97,103/- under section 201(1A), aggregating to Rs.13,49,273/-. 2. The record reveals that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), several notices were issued to the assessee calling upon it to substantiate the grounds of appeal. However, despite repeated opportunities, the assessee neither filed effective submissions nor produced the requisite documentary evidence. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not effectively appear before the authorities below due to inadvertent

2 circumstances and, therefore, the matter came to be decided ex parte. It was contended that the assessee has a good case on merits and possesses relevant documentary evidence which could not be placed before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR pleaded that one effective opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). It was further assured that the assessee shall appear on every date fixed by the appellate authority and shall fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the assessee during the appellate proceedings, but the assessee failed to avail the same. It was argued that the conduct of the assessee reflects negligence and lack of diligence. However, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that if the Bench is inclined to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice, the same may be subject to appropriate costs and with a direction to the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee did not effectively prosecute the matter before the authorities below and remained absent despite opportunities afforded by them. Such conduct on the part of the assessee cannot be appreciated. At the same time, it is equally well settled that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations and, wherever possible, a litigant should be afforded one effective opportunity to present its case on merits.

6.1 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if one final opportunity is granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld. CIT(A). However, such indulgence deserves to be granted only upon imposition of costs so as to compensate for the avoidable wastage of judicial time occasioned by the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGIMR, Chandigarh within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall furnish proof of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of hearing. In the event of failure to deposit

3 the aforesaid costs, the benefit of this remand order shall not be available to the assessee, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6.2 The assessee is further directed to extend full cooperation in the remand proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In case of default or non-cooperation, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be free to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of the material available on record without granting any further indulgence.

Sd/- Sd/- मनोज कुमार अ�वाल लिलत कुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH