BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 547/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 March 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based on the presumption that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme. However, the assessee submitted that the VSV declaration was not made in relation to the TDS order under Section 201. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not opted for the VSV Scheme for the matter relating to Section 201 (TDS). Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal under a mistaken presumption. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to its file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with due opportunity of being heard and allowing the assessee to present further evidence and submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balkrishna Industries Limited, is in appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)) dated 05/06/2025. This order arose from an order dated 30/03/2023 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle - TDS, Rajkot, under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had levied interest under these sections amounting to Rs. 71,33,619. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, observing that the appellant had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme and made tax payments. The assessee contends that the VSV declaration was for a separate appeal concerning an order under Section 143(3) for the same assessment year, not for the TDS order under Section 201.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme, when the scheme was not opted for in relation to the appeal against the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the VSV declaration pertained solely to a separate appeal filed against an order under Section 143(3) for AY 2016-17, which is distinct from the present appeal against the order under Section 201. The dismissal on the ground of opting for VSV was incorrect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the assessee's prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM

आदेश / O R D E R PER, Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM; Captioned appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, is directed against order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 05/06/2025, which in turn arises out of an order dated 30/03/2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I.T. Act.

2.

The Grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are as follows: -

1.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Dismissing the appeal on the ground of opting for VSV Scheme without appreciating that the appellant had not opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme in relation to the appeal filed against the order passed u/s 201 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. The dismissal of the appeal on this basis is Incorrect

2. Falling to appreciate that the VSV declaration pertained solely to a separate appeal filed against the order u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2016-17 (Appeal No. CIT(A)-12, Mumbai/10365/2019-20), which is distinct and independent from the present appeal filed against the order passed u/s 201 of the Act.

3.

Facts of the Case The Company mainly operates in one segment i.e. tyres with a focus on manufacture of wide range of Off Highway Specialty Tyres. These tyres are meant for Agricultural Industrial Material Handling Construction Earthmoving OTR Forestry Lawn and garden equipment’s and All-Terrain Vehicles ATV. Around 88percent of turnover is on account of exports Assessee has incurred various expenditure during the year. The learned AO had called for submitting details relating to Labor Charges incurred during the year.

The order by the Assessing Officer was passed on dated 21.07 2023, with levying the interest u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act 1961 of Rs. 49,14,881 – 22,18,738 = 71,33,619

4.

That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of assessment before Ld. CIT(A), by order dated 05/06/2025 the appeal was dismissed with following observation:

“The appellant has opted for VSVS scheme. It is seen from ITBA that the tax payment has been made by the appellant for the year under consideration. Hence, no action is required and the appeal of the appellant is hereby Dismissed.”

5.

That the assessee has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 by moving of an appeal before this Tribunal.

i. The Ld. AR Submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the written submission filed before the CIT(A) the Ld. Cancel stated that assessee has not opted the “Vivad se Vishwas Scheme” in relation to TDS order u/s. 201 of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse as if the assessee opted “Vivad se Vishwas Scheme” therefore, direction may kindly be given to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit. ii. On the contrary the Ld. DR has no objection on the prayer of the assessee.

6.

We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the appeal was disposed by the Ld. CIT(A) with the view that the assessee has opted the scheme of settlement of cases i.e. “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme”. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submission made by the assessee online on the website of the Department on dated: 11.10.2023.

7.

We note that the assesse has not opted Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for this matter relating to u/s. 201 of the Act (TDS) however, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed Balkrishna Industries Limited vs. DCIT the appeal of the assessee under the presumption that assessee has opted Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for order of TDS. The real fact is that assessee has never opted “Vivad se Vishwas Scheme” for TDS matter therefore, we find that the assessee is appeal meet to be adjudicated on merit by Ld. CIT(A). We set-aside the order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and further directed to dispose of the case on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee will also be at liberty to bring more evidence and submission before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/ 03/2026.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →