ACME BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 491/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 February 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the unfortunate circumstances. The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were sent via e-mail and ITBA portal which the Assessee could not see. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Assessee with a delay of 8 days. The Assessee's counsel attributed the delay to unfortunate circumstances beyond their control, including the illness and death of a key company director who handled tax matters. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed time limit should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 250,Section 201(1A),Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The DCIT, ACME Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), JLPL, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab �थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AAICA9869Q अपीलाथ�/ APPELLANT ��यथ�/ REPSONDENT ( Hybrid Hearing ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.02.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3. Gurugram.

2.

It is seen from the record that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 08 days in filing of the appeal. The Counsel for the Assessee submitted that an Affidavit for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under:

491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 2

491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 3

491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 4 3. We have considered the issue brought on record and gone through the contents of the affidavit for condonation of delay and we feel it appropriate to condone the delay because of the nature of issue discussed in the affidavit.

4.

The ld. DR had no objection for condonation of delay.

5.

The grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under: - 1) That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex-parte order under section 201 r.w.s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 1,09,812/- under Section 201 and interest of Rs. 6,588/- under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 3,685/- on non deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 1,84,237/- to M/s Black Cat Z Security and Allied Services on 19.11.2018 under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without correctly appreciating the facts of the case is bad in law and void ab-initio.

4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 315/- on non-deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 15,729/- to M/s J&J Traders on 26.12.2018 under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without

491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 5 correctly appreciating the facts of the case is bad in law and void ab-initio.

5) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 612/-on non-deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 30,558/- to M/s RDC India Projects under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without correctly appreciating the facts of the case is bad in law and void ab-initio.

6) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 1,05,200/- on non-deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 52,60,000/- to M/s Mohan International Builders under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without correctly appreciating the facts of the case and is bad in law and void ab-initio

7) That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a penalty proceeding under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act 1961.

8) That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the said appeal.

6. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.

491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 6 7. The ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has mentioned that various opportunities of being heard were given to the Assessee on 17.06.2020, 11.11.2022, 30.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 14.02.2024 electronically but despite different opportunities given and e.mails sent to the Assessee, nobody did appear. The Counsel for the Assessee submitted that all the notices were sent on e.mail and ITBA portal which the Assessee could not see, therefore, no compliance was made. He further requested that in the interest of natural justice, the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.

8.

The ld. DR did not have any objection.

9.

We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel of the Assessee during the proceedings before us and we have also seen the order passed by ld. CIT(A). We find that all the notices were sent on e.mail and ITBA portal, the Assessee could not see it and, therefore, no compliance was made. In our considered opinion, in the fitness of things, we are remanding this matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the 491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 7 assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24. 02.2025

More judgments on Section 201

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →