STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-1830 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes. Regarding the delay, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order and the subsequent prompt filing of the appeal upon learning of it. While not explicitly condoning the delay, the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes implies that the delay was not a bar to adjudication. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also took into account the pendency of SLP (C) No. 16734/2023 before the Supreme Court, where recovery from employees was stayed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the appellant and for the appellant to submit its submissions. The Tribunal explicitly mentioned that its decision was guided by the Supreme Court's stay on recovery from employees.

What were the facts?

The assessee, State Bank of India (formerly SBBJ), filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Ajmer, dated June 11, 2019, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1988 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s dismissal order dated June 11, 2019, and they only became aware of it on January 13, 2025, upon receiving a recovery notice. The original proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were initiated by the ITO, TDS, Ajmer, on November 20, 2018, raising a demand of Rs. 1,22,731/-. The assessee had appealed this order to the CIT(A) on December 4, 2018, which was dismissed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be condoned for the delay of 1988 days, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. - Assessee's contention: The delay was not deliberate but occurred due to reasons beyond their control, specifically non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s dismissal order and lack of knowledge thereof until a recovery notice was received. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, advocating a liberal approach to condone delays due to procedural or administrative reasons. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the assessment order dated November 20, 2018, passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) by the ITO, TDS, Ajmer, is legally sustainable. - Assessee's contention: The order is unsustainable due to (i) failure to issue notice to employees before declaring the bank as assessee-in-default, (ii) violation of principles of natural justice, (iii) absence of tax calculation or reasoning, and (iv) lack of jurisdiction. They cited ITAT Jaipur Bench decisions in similar cases involving State Bank of India, arguing the order is void ab initio. They also highlighted the pendency of SLP No. 16734/2023 before the Supreme Court, with a stay order restraining recovery from employees, arguing it violates natural justice to proceed solely against the bank. - Revenue's contention: Supported the orders of the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 142,Section 292BB,Section 253(5),Section 5,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 02/04/2025Pronounced: 27/05/2025

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11.06.2019 passed under section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "

1.

Under the facts and circumstances the ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the assessment proceedings against the SBBJ (A n

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 201

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →