Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036748688(1) dated 06.11.2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 arising out of order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ITO, TDS Ward-1(2), Kolkata dated 20.11.2019.
Grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:
“1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/Kolkata is arbitrary based on mere surmises bad in law as well as on facts. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeal) is not justified in ascertaining the actual liability for TDS Less TDS made amounting to rs.816710.00 for short deduction/no deduction of TDS. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeal) is not justified in ascertaining the short deduction of Rs.43228.00 on account of payment made under the head Diagnostic Other Expenses.”
HHP Hospital Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2018-19 3. Brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s. 133A(2A) of the Act were conducted on 03.01.2019 at the office premise of the assessee. In the course of survey proceedings it was found that the assessee had deducted tax (TDS) @ 2% u/s. 194C of the Act on expenses of Rs.5,40,347/- under the head diagnostic other expenses. According to the Ld. AO, TDS should have been done @10% u/s. 194J of the Act. Accordingly, an order u/s. 201(1)/(1A) of the Act was passed on 20.11.2019 raising a demand of Rs.12,23,602/- including interest u/s. 201(1)/(1A) of Rs.2,23,584/- and previous demand of Rs.1,40,080/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
3.1. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4 noted that during the appellate proceeding, assessee was provided sufficient opportunity to file submissions in support of its grounds of appeal but it chose not to respondent to any of such notices. He, therefore, proceeded to adjudicate on the basis of material available on record and the applicable provisions of the Act and thus, confirmed the demand raised by the Ld. AO by dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Before us, Shri Jai Chand Maloo, CA represented the assessee and Shri Biswanath Das, Dr. DR represented the department.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book to substantiate the claim against the demand raised by the Ld. AO. He referred to the compilation containing all the relevant details and documents in respect of deduction of tax at source u/s. 192 relating to salary and director’s remuneration, short deduction of Rs.13,611/-, deduction of tax at source u/s. 194J of the Act and u/s. 194C of the Act. By referring to these documents, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of these documents and records against the demand raised by the Ld. AO vide order u/s. 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. On this HHP Hospital Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2018-19 prayer, the matter was confronted to the Ld. Sr. DR who did not raise any objection. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair-play, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to consider the documents and explanations placed by the Ld. Counsel before us in respect of demand raised on this issue vide order u/s. 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any other submission, if required, to substantiate and justify the claim made by it. Referring to the track record of the assessee in the proceedings before the authorities below, we also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the proceeding before the Ld. AO for its expeditious disposal and avoid taking adjournment except in certain specific compelling circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.