Loading judgment…
Facts
A survey was conducted at the assessee's premises, leading to an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Chennai, determining tax payable. The assessee appealed this order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication of the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided proper opportunity of hearing and sufficient opportunity to produce evidence before the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
133(2A), 201, 201(1A), 271C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, (in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Mumbai, dated 13.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of production of feature films. A survey u/s. 133(2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on (AY 2016-17) Shivagurunathan Aishwarya 08.03.2018. In pursuance to the survey, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle - 1, Chennai passed a common order u/s. 201/201(1A) of the Act in determining the tax payable at Rs.3,26,28,355/- comprising of the following: S.No. Particulars Amount (₹) 1 TDS Deducted but not Rs. 2,16,22,300/- remitted 2 TDS not deducted Rs. 22,00,460/- 3 Short deduction of TDS Rs. 4,50,000/- 4 Interest thereon Rs. 83,55,595/- Total Rs. 3,26,28,355/-
The Appellant in this appeal vehemently objects to the TDS order passed u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1, Chennai dated 26.03.2018 in view of the service of the order during the month of May, 2022 after initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the Act vide notice dated 06.05.2022. However, before the ld.CIT(A), assessee did appear received any notice hence assessee was not able to produce evidence, hence the ld.CIT(A) proceeded on merits and dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of AO. Hence, assessee is further in appeal before us.
Before us also, the ld. Counsel submitted that while adjudicating the matter the ld. CIT(A) has not given proper notice of hearing to explain the grounds raised in appeal. He further pleaded that for one more opportunity to file the evidence before the CIT(A). The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR (AY 2016-17) Shivagurunathan Aishwarya pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has neither prosecuted the appeal nor filed supporting evidences with regard to the TDS issue before the ld. CIT(A).
We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(A) to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for de novo adjudication of appeal after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case/appeal forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on the 21st day of July, 2025, in Chennai.