A.R. HOLDINGS AND ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-191), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2032/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 October 2025Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an intimation under Section 143(1) where TDS credit was restricted and interest was levied. The appeal was filed with a delay of 39 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone, leading to dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 16.09.2025Pronounced: 10.10.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 12.06.2025 for Assessment Year 2024-25.

A.R. Holdings and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act issued by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (CPC), wherein the CPC restricted the TDS credit to Rs. 39,65,475/- as against the claim of Rs. 67,15,378/- and levied interest u/s. 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 92,076/- and Rs. 38,749/-, respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 39 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, the Id. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has given reasons for the delay in Form 35, but the same was not appreciated by the Id. CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded that after condoning the delay, the assessee may be given chance to prosecute the case before the A.O. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Id.

CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

5.

Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld. AR and find that the reasons given by the assessee can't be ruled out.

Hence, we condone the delay and also keeping in mind the natural A.R. Holdings and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted opportunity to prosecute the case before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for hearing on merits. The ld.CIT(A) shall proceed for hearing the appeal on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. Legal issues are open. The Id. AR of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the authorities.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 10th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →