ROYALE ASSAGAO,GOA vs. ITO (TDS WARD) PANAJI, PANAJI- GOA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 152/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 August 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present details to the Assessing Officer and set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 60 days. The assessee is a hotel business that allegedly failed to deduct TDS on salary, rent, and staff accommodation. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the Assessing Officer's demand.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present details regarding TDS calculations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘DB’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Pawar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.08.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, ‘DB’ PANAJI BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.152/PAN/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Royale Assagao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No.275/1/62, (TDS Ward), Panaji Socolwado, Assagao, Bardez, Mapusa, Goa-403507 PAN : AAMFR9524L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Prasad Pawar, CA (virtual) Revenue by : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 21.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 28.10.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Pune arising out of Penalty Order dated 26.03.2025 passed u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days in filing of appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No.152/PAN/2026 Royale Assagao The assessee has filed a condonation application along with an Affidavit stating the reasons for delay. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the condonation petition prayed for condoning the delay of 60 days as ‘reasonable cause’ exists for not filing the appeal in time.

3.

After hearing both the sides going through the averments made in the condonation petition, we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, taking justice oriented approach, the delay of 60 days occurred in preferring the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382 and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

The grievance of the assessee is against the demand of Rs.42,45,351/- raised by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.201(1) at Rs.23,07,236/- and interest payable u/s.201(1A) of the Act at Rs.19,38,079/-.

ITA No.152/PAN/2026 Royale Assagao 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Hotel based in Goa. On account of alleged discrepancies, the respective Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward issued compliance notice u/s.133(6) to the deductor on 16.11.2022. There was no compliance from the side of assessee and the reason for the same is stated that Hotel was not running at the time when notices were issued. However, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information appearing in the balance sheet calculated shortfall of TDS not deducted on Salary, Rent, Staff Accommodation and calculated the TDS liability of Rs.23,07,236/- and also interest payable at Rs.19,38,079/-. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but again failed to respond to the notices fixed for hearing on 17.07.2025, 27.08.2025 and 24.10.2025 due to which ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer.

6.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to bonafide and reasonable cause, assessee could not respond to the notices. He submitted that TDS liability deserves to be cancelled on account of the reason that ld. Assessing Officer has calculated the TDS liability on the

ITA No.152/PAN/2026 Royale Assagao gross amount of salary, rent and staff accommodation whereas the assessee possesses all the details to show that the payment to the individuals/accommodation are not exceeding the permissible limit which requires deduction of tax at source and therefore prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before ld. Assessing Officer to provide the details. Ld. Sr.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

7.

Considering the factual matrix, prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and without dwelling upon the merits of the case, we in the larger interest of justice grant one more opportunity and remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.Assessing Officer (TDS Ward) for examination of the details and decide them in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld.Assessing Officer (TDS Ward) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds

ITA No.152/PAN/2026 Royale Assagao of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

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

Order pronounced on this 21st day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji; दिन ांक / Dated : 21st August, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.08.21 12:31:32 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji/ ITAT, Panaji

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 →