MAHARANA PRATAP EDUCATION CENTRE,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.900/LKW/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharana Pratap Education v. Dy. Commissioner of Centre Income-tax (TDS) 117/Q/66, Sharada Nagar, 7/19, Radiance Town, Kanpur-208017. Swaroop nagar, Kanpur- 208002. PAN: AABTM5254H अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date of hearing: 23 02 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date of 22 04 2026 pronouncement: O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 4, Mumbai dated 13.10.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That, the order dated 13.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void ab initio, having been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, without providing proper, effective or meaningful opportunity of hearing, and without objectively evaluating the evidence placed on record. 2. That, the CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking and cryptic appellate order, in clear violation of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, CBDT

ITA No.900/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 5 Instruction No. 20/2003, and binding Supreme Court judgments mandating reasoned quasi-judicial orders. 3. That, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the arbitrary demand of Rs.11,10,40,994/-, despite the fact that the AO failed to: identify any payee-wise default, verify the nature of payments, in) examine TDS returns/challans, determine applicability of any specific TDS section. 4. That, the AO mechanically applied TDS on entire expense heads /out verifying whether the payments were actually subject to TDS, hereby rendering the computation perverse and bad in law. 5. That, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidences without ^plying Rule 46A(3), which mandates calling for a remand report; hence the appellate order is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 6. That, the CIT(A) erred in not considering that the Appellant had already deducted and deposited TDS, and that the delay in deposit Ind been made good by paying statutory interest u/s 201(lA)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the authorities failed to apply the Second Proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides relief where the payee has paid tax; no verification of payees’ tax position was done before treating the Appellant as assessee-in-default. 8. That, several payments were wrongly subjected to TDS, despite falling „ outside the scope of Sections 194A/194C/194H/1941/194Jof the Income-tax Act, 1961, such as charitable donations, bank charges, reimbursements, salary components, internal educational expenses, and purchases. 9. That, the interest u/s 201(1 A) of the Income-tax Act, 196Ihas been wrongly computed, without giving credit for TDS actually deposited and without establishing the correct period of delay. 10 That, the AO’s ex-parte order suffers from non-application of mind, absence of enquiry, and breach of statutory duty to verify books of accounts and TDS compliance. 11. That, the CIT(A)’s failure to adjudicate each ground individually renders the order legally unsustainable. 12. Without prejudice, the computation is excessive, incorrect, and contrary to facts on record. 13. That, the appellant reserves the right to amend, modify, add, or withdraw any grounds at the time of hearing. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: - (a) The Appellant prays for deletion of the entire demand. (b) Or alternatively, remand of the matter to the AO for fresh determination after full verification of records.

ITA No.900/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 c) Provide any further orders deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal to ensure justice and fairness. RELIEF IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT In view of the facts and the circumstances mentioned above, it is most fully requested to Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may graciously be to: - a) Grant ex-parte ad-interim relief to the Appellant in terms of prayer (a) - (b) prayed above. (b) Stay the operation, execution and implementation of the Impugned Order dated 31.08.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Kanpur duly confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated 13.10.2025 Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a society duly registered with the Sub-Registrar and has been granted registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) issued a notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act on 21.07.1995. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Subsequently, a final show cause notice dated 21.09.2017 was issued, calling upon the assessee to explain as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default. In the absence of any response, the AO proceeded to treat the assessee as an assessee in default and raised a demand of Rs.11,10,40,994/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and filed responses to the notices issued by the said authority. However, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No.900/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 5 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. He opposed the submissions of the assessee and contended that the assessee society is under statutory obligation for deduction of tax on payment made by it.

ITA No.900/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 5 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ननखखल चौिरी] [कुल भारत] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 22/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File //True Copy//