Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM
(Assessment Year: 2021-22) AND (Assessment Year: 2021-22) TC Tours Limited ITO (TDS) (OSD) Circle 2(3), 1st Floor, Thomascook Building, D. N. Mumbai Vs. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. AABCT5333R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Madhur Agarwal a/w. Ms. Pratiksha Jain : Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR. Respondent by Date of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: 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. (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., 1253/Mum/2024 and is listed on same date i.e., 16.04.2025. The ITA No. 1187 & 1253/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) TC Tours Limited assessee intends to withdraw the duplicate appeal in for A.Y. 2021-22, as the grounds for both these appeals are the same. We therefore deem it fit to dismiss this appeal as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
(Assessment Year: 2021-22) 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ground 1: Violation of Principle of Natural Justice 1.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the order dated
27. December 2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/JCIT (A)-11, Delhi (Learned CIT(A)"), is invalid and bad in law as being in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present its case which is essential for the proper adjudication of an appeal. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) incorrectly mentioned that the appellant has not effectively pursued the appellate proceedings and failed to respond to various notices issued. First Notice: As a matter of fact, the first notice of hearing was uploaded on the income tax portal on 3. December 2024, however due to a technical glitch, the notice was not accessible to the appellant. Second Notice: Further, in respect of the second notice of hearing issued on 11. December 2024 to be complied by 26. December 2024, an application for adjournment was uploaded on income-tax portal on 23. December 2024 by the appellant. However, the CIT (A), without informing the appellant the fate of his adjournment application proceeded to pass the appellate order vide order dated
27. December 2024. This act of passing the order without addressing the adjournment request constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it deprives the appellant of a fair opportunity to present their case. 1.3 Additionally, the hearing notice issued by the CIT(A) contained errors, specifically citing the wrong assessment year for which no appeal exists ie., AY 2020-21 and also based on an incorrect DIN number.”
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of tours and travels. The assessee has the IATA license, which is required for & 1253/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) TC Tours Limited booking the flight tickets. The assessee company books the flight tickets for the corporate as well as non-corporate travelers. A survey action u/s. 133A(2A) of the Act dated 25.11.2021 was carried out in assessee’s case at the registered/corporate offices. The learned Assessing Officer (‘ld. AO’ for short) observed that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS under section 194-O of the Act for which the ld. AO issued show cause notice u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act dated 01.02.2023 which was duly issued to the assessee for non-compliance of TDS provisions as per Section 194-O of the Act for which the assessee is to be treated as “an assessee in default”. The assessee is said to have furnished details and submitted that the assessee neither owns any e-commerce platform nor operates or manages digital or electronic facility for electronic commerce for supply of goods or services or both including digital products over digital or electronic network. The ld. AO not satisfied with the assessee’s submission held the assessee to be “an assessee in default” as per Section 194-O of the Act, for the reason that the assessee company is an IATA license holder and an e-commerce operator because in the capacity of being centralised procurement agency for Thomas Cook Group, it procures services from various Airlines through digital platform called GDS (Global Distribution System) which enables transactions between travel industry service providers, mainly airlines, hotels, car rental companies, and travel agencies. The ld. AO vide order dated 12.07.2023, passed u/s. 201(1)(1A) of the Act, determined the total revenue booked by the assessee from 1.10.2020 to 31.03.2021 at Rs. 10,15,02,780/- and computed tax u/s. 201(1) and interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act at Rs. 7,61,271/- and 2,58,832/- respectively, aggregating to Rs. 10,20,103.
& 1253/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) TC Tours Limited 6. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 27.12.2024, upheld the order of the ld. AO, for the reason that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and has not made proper compliance.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS under section 194-O of the Act on payments made to airline companies. It is also observed that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the proceeding before the first appellate authority and had failed to furnish any explanation along with the supporting documentary evidence in support of its claim. The ld. CIT(A) has also not decided the issue on the merits of the case for the above-mentioned reason.
The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunities which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in interest of justice dispensation, where & 1253/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) TC Tours Limited the ld. CIT(A) has failed to decide the issue on the merits. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on its side and the ld. CIT(A) is also directed to decide the issue on the merits of the case based upon the submission of the assessee and in accordance with law.