YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL,TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5129/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2021AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to the AO as it lacks the power to do so and also violated principles of natural justice by not passing a speaking order. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the AO's order treating the assessee as in default for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the AO without passing a speaking order and without granting a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can remit an issue to the AO without passing a speaking order and violating principles of natural justice. Whether the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default for TDS when there was no short deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 154,Section 251(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Krupa Gandhi
For Respondent: Ms. Smita Veerma
Hearing: 25.02.2021Pronounced: 18.05.2021

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5129/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No. 5130/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No. 5131/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM):-

These are appeals by the assesses against respective order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] for the concerned assessment years as above. Since the issues are common and connected these are being disposed of together by this common order.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised are common. For the sake of convenience grounds of appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is reproduced hereunder :- GROUND NO. I:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax CPC- TDS ("the AO") passed u/s 154 of the Act for Q1treating the Appellant as an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had not received the purported notice for hearing of appeal.

2 Yes Bank Limited

3. The Appellant prays that the order passed by the AO under section 201(1)/201(1A) for Ql of the Act and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) be annulled as void ab-initio and/or otherwise bad in law.

Without prejudice to Ground I GROUND NO. II:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing the direction to the AO to verify from records the claim of the Appellant and do as per law, without considering the orders passed by CIT(A) in other periods, on the same issue

2. Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ground on which the Appellant was held as an assessee in default was decided in favour of the Appellant by other appellate orders of CIT(A).

3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be struck down as having been passed disregarding the earlier appellate orders on the same issue.

Without prejudice to Grounds I and II GROUND NO III:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO of holding the Appellant as an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act for Rs. 2,36,559/- even though there was no short deduction of tax at source and there was only a mis-match between the amount claimed by the Appellant and the amount captured by TRACES due to wrong quoting of TAN by customers in their applications u/s 197 of the Act.

2. The Appellant prays that it be held that in the absence of any short deduction, the Appellant should not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201.

Without prejudice to Grounds I and II GROUND NO IV:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 67,685/-on the purported short deduction of tax at source.

2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the interest amounting to Rs. 67,685/- charged u/s. 201(1A).

3.

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to assessment order the learned CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order remitting the issue to the file of assessing officer by observing as under :-

I have gone through the grounds of appeal and statement of facts. As the appellant has not attended hearing even after being given many

3 Yes Bank Limited opportunities and since no documents have been attached about deduction of tax. Hence, the only direction that can be given to Assessing Officer is to verify from the records the claim of the appellant and do as per law.

4.

The above order was passed even after noting down the various grounds raised by the assessee and the statement of facts submitted.

5.

Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

6.

We find that it is settled law that even administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. We note that despite noting the assessee's issues and grounds raised learned CIT(A) has chosen not to pass by speaking order. She has laconically remitted the matter to the file of assessing officer. As per the provisions of law contained in section 251(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has no power to remit the matter to the file of assessing officer. She can only confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. In this view of the matter the order of learned CIT(A) is not at all sustainable. However in the interest of justice we remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order on the grounds and issue raised by the assessee. Needless to add assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result these appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 18.5.2021.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →