SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order in undue haste after an adjournment request was made, and that the late fee levied was without sanction of law.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity, and whether the late fee under Section 234E was legally leviable and recoverable through an order under Section 200A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Velu Palandar v. DCIT94 citing83 ITR 683 · 1972 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.180/JAB/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 Shanti Lal Jain v. DCIT Prop. Jain Advertising Agency CPC, TDS Arya Samaj Market Ghaziabad Russel Chowk, Jabalpur TAN/PAN:JBPSO6909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent by: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date of hearing: 04 04 2019 Date of pronouncement: 04 04 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur, dated 27/6/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14, taking the following grounds: 1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in passing the order ex-parte on 26/6/2018 while the counsel's junior had filed the application for adjournment on 21/6/2018 for extension of hearing for further 20 days but he passed the order on 26/6/2018 in undue haste. 2. That the Id. A.O. (TDS-CPC) had wrongly levied a late fees of Rs.16,800/-and issued order u/s 200A of the Act. 3. That the Id. A.O. has charged the late fee of Rs.16,800/- without sanction of law as subsection (3) of the section 234E of the Act states it shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement. It means that any late fees should have been deposited just at
ITA No.180/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4
the time of delivering TDS statement and if TDS statement has been accepted than no late fee can be charged later. 4. That the Id. A.O. failed to understood that once the TDS statement has been accepted without late fees, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In view of above, late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 5. That the Id. A.O. has failed to under stood that the provision of section 204 of the Act has made the person responsible for section 190 to 203AA and section 285, this phrase does not cover Section 234E, it means no one is responsible for default u/s 234E. 6. The Id. A.O. erred in passing the intimation u/s 200A of the Act which does not permit processing of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees, except any arithmetical error, or incorrect claim, or default in payment of interest and TDS payable or refundable etc. Hence, late fees for TDS quarterly statement cannot be recovered by way of processing u/s 200A. Therefore, no demand notice cannot be issued under this section. Hence, the order u/s 200A imposing late fee u/s 234E has to be cancelled and quashed. 7. The Id. A.O. failed to understand that the act does not allow any assessing authority to pass an order u/s 234E of the Act, therefore, any recovery also cannot be made u/s 234E. 8. That the Id. A.O. passed the impugned order is without application of mind and the same is erroneous to law and in facts. 9. That the learned CIT (A) has allowed the appeal on the same grounds in the case of Om Sai Aakarsh Constructions, Jabalpur vide order dated 10/6/2016.
By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. We take note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued only one notice, dated 8/6/2018. On this date, ld. A.R. of the assessee sought adjournment, accordingly the case was adjourned to 26/6/2018, but on this date, none appeared on behalf of
ITA No.180/JAB/2018 Page 3 of 4
the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 3. Heard. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. The assessee has taken a specific ground with regard to non-service of notice on the assessee. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/04/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
DATED:04/04/2019 JJ:0404
ITA No.180/JAB/2018 Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 200A
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026