M/S. SUNRAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) - 1, THANE, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the withdrawal was based on a mistaken belief and that the demand was still alive. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee withdrew an appeal before the CIT(A) due to a mistaken belief that a late filing penalty for TDS was waived. This mistake was caused by the Chartered Accountant's staff misinterpreting information from TRACES.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal withdrawn due to a staff error and mistaken belief should be restored for adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Thane dated 17.12.2019 for AYs 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. As the issue involved in the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and having common issue, the M/s Sunraj Enterprises 2 1323 & 1324/M/2020 same are therefore being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. Facts being identical, we begin with the AY 2013-14. Assessment Year: 2013-14 2. At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A)-1, Thane against the order passed u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). After filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed letter dated 10.12.2019 requesting for withdrawal of the appeal in AYs under appeal i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Based on the above letter of withdrawal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn being infructuous. Now, the assessee filed appeal before us with the plea that the assessee has withdrawn the appeal before CIT(A)-1, Thane due to mistake of staff of Chartered Accountant. The staff noticed by mistake that there is no penalty listed on late filing of TDS in the TRACES. However, later it was found by the assessee that it is a mistake on the part of staff of the Chartered Accountant and noticed that the demand was still alive. In this regard, the assessee also filed an affidavit from the staff of Chartered Accountant i.e. Mr. Pratik Chandrakant Chavan.
M/s Sunraj Enterprises 3 1323 & 1324/M/2020
Considering the above facts on record, we observed that the assessee has withdrawn the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) with mistaken belief that the late fee levied by the Department is deleted. However, the Department has not deleted the late fees in the case of the assessee. Since, the staff of the Chartered Accountant wrongly noticed that waiver of the fees of the another client and by mistake advised the same to the Chartered Accountant and the assessee. At the advice of the Chartered Accountant, the assessee has withdrawn the appeal on mistaken belief that there is no demand. For the sake of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the issue and decide the issue on merit. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Facts are being identical, our decision for the AY 2013-14 applies mutatis mutandis to AYs. 2014-15 & 2015-16. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/11/2021. Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/11/2021 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)- M/s Sunraj Enterprises 4 1323 & 1324/M/2020
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 →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026