CONSCIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 73(1), DELHI

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 10-09-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 and arises out of the order dated 07-03-2023 PASSED u/s 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:

2
2. That the impugned order u/s 201 is illegal as without juri iction.
3. That the impugned order u/s 201 is bad in law as no online
DIN has been generated on the system.
4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed.
5. (a) The under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justification in law as well as on merit in treating assessee in default on account of non-deduction of TDS on EDC charges of Rs.16,92,500/-.
5.(b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 201 (1) by the Ld. AO is bad in law and the appellant denies its liability to deduct TDS u/s 194 C on payment made to Director of Town & Country Planning for EDC charges.
5.(c) That the Ld. AO erred in law in holding that tax was deductible under section 194C on payments made on account of EDC in pursuance to agreement entered into with Governor of Haryana acting through Director of Town & Country Planning,
Haryana.
6. (a) The under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justification in law as well as on merit in treating assessee in default on account of non-deduction of TDS on interest
EDC charges of Rs.95,47,591/-.
6.(b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 201 (1) by the Ld. AO is bad in law and the appellant denies its liability to deduct TDS u/s 194 A on payment made to 3
Director of Town & Country Planning for EDC charges and interest thereon.
5.(c) That the Ld. AO erred in law in holding that tax was deductible under section 194A on payments made on account of late payment of EDC in pursuance to agreement entered into with Governor of Haryana acting through Director of Town & Country
Planning, Haryana.
7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case no interest should have been charged. In any case, the calculation are erroneous and excessive.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate development and management of real estate project. In this case a report was received that the assessee had made certain payments in the nature of IDC and IAC during the F.Y. 2017-18 and assessee had failed to deduct TDS on payment made to IDF. Notice u/s 201(1)
/(IA) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In the response the assessee company filed the submission before the AO. The Assessing Officer after considering the submission raised the total demand of Rs.15,91,660/- u/s 201(1)/ 201(IA) of the Act. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC despite four opportunities granted the Ld.
NFAC relying on the following decisions dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

4
(i) Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi ‘G’ Bench ITA No. 1238 & 1239
/Del/2011 A.Y.2005-06
(ii) Praveen Kumar Pruthi vs. Income Tax Officer ITAT Delhi ‘F’
Bench ITA NO. 478/Del/2011 A.Y.1999-2000
(iii) Assistant Director of Income Tax vs. White Industries
Australia Ltd. ITA Bench ’C’ Kolkata ITA No. 506/Kol/2010
A.Y.1992-93
(iv) Jai International vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No. 138/id/2018 A.Y.2012-13
(v) Ramesh Sharma vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
ITAT Delhi ‘F’ bench ITA No. 2911/Del/2013 A.Y. 2006-07
(vi)Estate of Late Tukojirao Holker vs. Commissioner of Wealth
Tax High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc. Civil Case No. 302of
1991
(vi) U-Like Promoters (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi ‘H’ Bench ITA No. 1569 to 1572 ?del/
2009
4. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by the Ld. NFAC. He further submitted that appellate proceedings was completed after rejecting the adjournment sought by the assessee. He prayed that the ex-parte order be set aside.

5
6. Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is a non-cooperative, he did not file submissions before the Ld.NFAC during the appeal proceedings.
7. We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. Since, in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee in non- prosecuting and has not decided the appeal on merits, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem fit proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC to grant one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. NFAC to substantiate its case. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2026. (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

*SR BHATNAGGR*

Date:- 18.03.2026