TC TOURS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO(TDS)(OSD)CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1187/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 April 2025AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to deduct TDS under Section 194-O on payments to airline companies and had been non-compliant throughout the proceedings before the first appellate authority, failing to furnish explanations or supporting documents. The CIT(A) had also not decided the issue on merits due to this non-compliance. However, considering the assessee's plea for one more opportunity and the fact that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits, the Tribunal decided to remand all issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with the proceedings without delay, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues on merits based on the assessee's submissions and in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, TC Tours Limited, is a company engaged in tours and travels, holding an IATA license for booking flight tickets. A survey under Section 133A(2A) was conducted on 25.11.2021. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for alleged failure to deduct TDS under Section 194-O on payments to airline companies. The AO treated the assessee as an "assessee in default" for procuring services through the Global Distribution System (GDS), considering it an e-commerce operator. The AO determined the total revenue booked from 01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021 at Rs. 10,15,02,780/-, computing TDS and interest at Rs. 7,61,271/- and Rs. 2,58,832/- respectively, totaling Rs. 10,20,103/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who passed an ex-parte order upholding the AO's decision due to non-compliance. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) is invalid and bad in law for violating the principle of natural justice, as alleged by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order dated 27 December 2024 was invalid due to a violation of natural justice. They claimed a technical glitch prevented access to the first notice, and an adjournment application filed for the second notice was not addressed before the ex-parte order was passed. The assessee also pointed out errors in the hearing notice, including the wrong assessment year (AY 2020-21) and an incorrect DIN number. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue opposed setting aside the issue to the CIT(A) as the assessee had been given several opportunities which were not availed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A(2A),Section 194-O,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1187/Mum/2025
ITA No. 1253/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J М: These captioned appeals filed by the assessee, challenges the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-11, Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)' for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year ('A.Y.' for short) 2021-22. ITA No. 1253/Mum/2025; (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR brought to our attention that the assessee had physically filed the appeal on 21.02.2025 and subsequently e-filed again on 24.02.2025. It is observed that the appeal has been assigned two numbers i.e., ITA No. 1187/Mum/2025 and 1253

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 133A(2A)

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →