Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALESmt. KG Mittal
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
1. The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai passed u/s 200A and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant based on the fact that a single appeal was filed for three quarters instead of filing separate appeals.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical matter without considering the merits of the case.
Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. - 2 -
The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to consider the submissions made by the appellant and Form 26A along with certificate from chartered accountant in respect of demand raised for short deduction of Rs. 1,81,195 on payments made to M/s Wadia Techno Engineering Services Private Limited and interest levied thereon of Rs. 1,08,155.
4. The learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in considering the appellant as an assessee in default under section 201/201(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax of Rs. 1,81,195 on payments made to M/S Wadia Techno Engineering Services Private Limited. 5. The learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in disregarding the proviso to section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Your appellants crave leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal as they may be advised.
The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has received three intimations u/s 200A of the Act issued by the CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad for Form no 26Q relating to the three quarters of the A.Y 2014-15 as under: A.Y Form No Qtr Demand (RS) 2014-15 26Q Q2 63,960/- 2014-15 26Q Q3 98,740/- 2014-15 26Q Q4 1,26,640/-
Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. - 3 -
3. The assessee against the intimations has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The appellate authority find that the assessee has filed only one single appeal for all the three intimations which is not permissible under the law. The CIT(A) observed that as per sub section (1) of section 246(A) of the Act, an appeal can be filed against an order, which includes an intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. Whereas in the present case the assesse has received intimation for the Quarter- Q2, Q3 and Q4 with the demand payable. The CIT(A)Considering the fact that the assessee has filed only single appeal has dismissed the appeal as un-admitted. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as the assessee has filed only single appeal against the intimation for Q2, Q3 and Q4 and prayed for an opportunity before the CIT(A) in filing the three separate appeals. Contra, the Ld.DR has no specific objections and mentioned that each intimation has to Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. - 4 - be considered as an order and the appeal has to be filed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Prima-facie on perusal of the facts and the information, the assessee has filed the appeal against the intimations received u/s 200A of the Act pertaining to A.Y 2014-15 with the demand payable for Q2 of Rs. 63,960/-, Q3 of Rs. 98,740/- and Q4 of Rs. 1,26,640/-.The assessee has considered all the three intimations as single as it pertains to same Assesseement Year. Whereas under the provisions of the Act, each intimation is an order and has to be dealt separately and the appeal has to be filed independently. We find that the CIT(A) has observed at page 3 Para 3.2 to 3.3 of the order on these aspects and has not dealt on the merits of the case.
We considering the facts, circumstances and the principles of natural justice provide an opportunity to the assessee to file a separate appeal against the intimation under 200A of the Act with the CIT(A) and the assessee has to file an application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal with the Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. - 5 - sufficient and reasonable cause with the Appellate Authority. Accordingly,we direct the CIT(A) to consider the application as per the law and decide the issue on merits. Further the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal
are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.01.2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 06.01.2022 KRK, PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / Concerned CIT �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//
Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. - 6 -
( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai