SRI KANAKA DURGA STEEL & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-59(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate its claims at any stage of the proceedings, despite opportunities given. The Tribunal found no documentary evidence or submissions to support the assessee's grievance.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted tax at source but failed to pay it within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice and, after considering a correction statement, held the assessee in default for non-payment of TDS and interest. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is liable for TDS default and interest for non-payment of deducted tax. Whether the appeal can be decided ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” 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)-24, Kolkata vide Appeal No.488/CIT(A)-24/Kol/12-13 dated 23.11.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 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, Ward-59(2), Kolkata dated 16.11.2012.
The only ground of appeal of the assessee relates to order passed by ITO u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act raising a demand of Rs.44,470/- on account of tax deducted but not paid and interest on late payment.
Brief facts from record are that assessee has filed e-TDS statement for 4th quarter in From No. 26Q for the FY 2008-09 relevant to Ay 2009- 10 on 03.06.2009. From the perusal of the e-TDS statement filed by the assessee it was noted that assessee has deducted tax at source but has not paid, for which a show cause notice was issued and was Sri Kanaka Durga Steel & Construction Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2009-10 advised to file “correction statement” to rectify the data entry errors, if any. After considering the ‘correction statement’, the ITO held the assessee as assessee in default in respect of TDS done but not paid and interest on late payment totaling to Rs.44,470/- vide his order dated 16.11.2012 passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate Proceeding noted that dates for hearing were fixed on three occasions i.e. 03.10.2017, 03.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 but assessee did not turn- up to make its submissions to substantiate the claim. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) chose to decide the matter ex parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us also neither any one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any submission or any paper book has been placed on record for substantiating the claims made in the present appeal. Shri Subhrajyoti Chakraborty, Addl. CIT represented the department.
We note that assessee has neither appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) nor before us to substantiate its claim nor it has furnished any evidence/material on record for meritorious disposal of the appeal. From the order of the ITO, we note that assessee was given an opportunity to file a ‘correction statement’ for rectifying the data entry errors, if any. Ld. ITO notices the default after the expiry of stipulated period for filing the ‘correction statement’ in which a time for 15 days was given to the assessee. Even before the ITO no such opportunity was availed by the assessee as noted from the impugned order. Thus, we note that at all three stages i.e. before the ITO, before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us, the assessee has not made its representation for the grievance raised by it. Accordingly, in absence of any documentary evidence and submissions made by the assessee, despite reasonable opportunity being given at all the three aforesaid stages of the Sri Kanaka Durga Steel & Construction Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2009-10 proceedings, we find it proper to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026