BANSHIDHAR ENTERPRISES,MAIN ROAD, CHARHI, HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD 1(1) HAZARIBAGH, HAZARIBAGH

ITA 134/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 September 2026AY 2017-201811 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Banshidhar Enterprises, filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 16/09/2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was delayed by 101 days, which the assessee sought to condone, citing reasons related to the unavailability of their authorized representative and subsequent search for a new one. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) on 10/12/2019. However, the PCIT, Dhanbad, revised this order under Section 263 on 30/03/2022, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, directing a fresh assessment. Consequently, the AO passed a fresh assessment order on 15/03/2023, making additions of Rs 72,000/- and Rs 10,52,421/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on 'accounting charges' and 'salary and allowance' respectively. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and relying on judicial pronouncements for a liberal approach to condonation. Regarding the additions under Section 40(a)(ia) for 'accounting charges' and 'salary and allowance', the Tribunal found it just and proper to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to appear before the AO and substantiate that the payments made as 'accounting charges' or in respect of 'salary' did not exceed the threshold limits where TDS was required to be deducted under Section 192 or Section 194J of the Act. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the assessee's explanation. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? - Assessee's Contention: The delay was not deliberate and was caused by circumstances beyond their control, including the unavailability of their authorized representative and the subsequent search for a new one. They relied on judicial precedents for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. - Revenue's Contention: The revenue objected to the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the addition/disallowance of Rs 72,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for 'accounting charges' is justified, on the grounds of non-deduction of TDS? - Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO did not ask for specific documents and that the payments did not attract TDS provisions. They also claimed that the CIT(A) upheld the addition without appreciating the facts. - Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3. Whether the addition/disallowance of Rs 10,52,421/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for 'salary and allowance' paid to 19 employees is justified, on the grounds of non-deduction of TDS? - Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the salary paid to each employee did not exceed the basic exemption limit (Rs 18,000/- pm or Rs 2,16,000/- per annum), hence no TDS was deductible under Section 192. They also stated that their books were audited and that the AO did not insist on specific registers. - Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 192,Section 194J,Section 270A,Section 143(1),Section 115BBE,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri KL Kanak, CIT-DR
Hearing: 16/09/2026Pronounced: 28/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 16/09/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law the Ld CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the 1.T. Act 1961. 2 That on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs 72,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the LT Act for accounting charge (Sal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →