BOYSEN INDIA LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1969/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 20214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee company provided fee for technical services to a foreign entity without a PAN. Due to an error in TDS return filing, the applicable tax rate was incorrectly applied, leading to a late filing fee under Section 234E. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice by providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI O.P. KANT & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Bhoop Singh, Senior DR
Hearing: 04.08.2021

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

Appellant, Boysen India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Noida qua the assessment year 2016-17 (Q3) on the grounds inter alia that :-

“1. The Learned CIT (Appeals)-I has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing due and reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and made representation. The action of the Learned CIT (Appeals)-I is arbitrary, unjustified and against concept of natural justice and equity as well as against the facts of the case.

2. The Learned CIT (Appeals)-I has erred in confirming the assessment order as passed by the Learned ACIT-1 levying the late fee u/s.234E of the IT Act of Rs.21,200/- for the quarter ended 31.12.2015 which is against the concept of natural justice and equity as well as against the facts of the case.”

2.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company has been filing income-tax and TDS return regularly. During the third quarter ending 31.12.2015 i.e. from 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015, the assessee company has provided fee for technical services payable to M/s.

Friedrich Boysen GmbH & Co. KG., Germany who did not have Permanent Account Number. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that as per Form No.15CB obtained from its statutory auditors, the company was required to deduct tax at source at 10% as per Para 2 of Article No.12-Royalties and Fees for Technical Services of DTAA between India & Germany. However, while uploading the TDS return, the rate was automatically got changed to 20% instead of 10% as applicable in this case. Assessee company could not file the return within stipulated time. Consequently, Central Processing Cell has imposed late filing fee of Rs.21,200/- u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). For AY 2016-17, assessee has been held in default for not complying the provisions of TDS and determined tax demand of Rs.39,600/- for Quarter-2 and Rs.21,200/- for Quarter-3.

3.

Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

4.

Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. Senior Departmental Representative as well as on the basis of documents available on the file.

5.

We have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

Ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal ex-parte against the assessee for non-prosecution without going into the merit on the ground that on the date fixed for hearing viz. 05.06.2017, 30.08.2017, 31.10.2017 & 06.11.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

However, perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT (A) apparently goes to prove that it is not brought on record if assessee company was ever served in this case. Merely fixing up the case for hearing without proper service of notice is not permissible under law. So, to decide the issue once for all, adequate opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee. Consequently, impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside to be decided afresh by the ld. CIT (A) after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 11th day of August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →