Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071181746(1) dated 13.12.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant
Page 1 of 8 & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.
FACTUAL MATRIX
That as and by way of an order made u/s 206C(6A)/ 2.1 206C(7) of the Act, the Assessee collector was deemed to be an “Assessee in default” in respect of amount of Rs.11,88,444/- within the meaning of Section 206C(6C) of the Act, for failure to deduct tax at source as discussed above in the aforesaid assessment order. The Interest-chargeable 206C(7) of the Act was worked out at Rs. 10,85,677/- and the fee chargeable u/s 234E was work out at Rs. 9,09,717/-. The Assessee was directed to pay Rs 31,83,838/- for FY 2012-13. That the aforesaid order is dated 29.06.2020 which is herein after refered to as the “Impugned TCS default order” for sake of Convenience and ease.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned TCS Default order” Prefers the first Appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has dismissed the first Appeal of the Assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The Core grounds and reasons are stated here under :-
Page 2 of 8 Juneja Size and Coal Wash Pvt. & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16
“3. The facts of the case as noted above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. No details, documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the order. The notices have been duly served upon the assessee via e-mail. Regrettably no response whatsoever was forthcoming on the appointed date. Thus, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate as to why the addition made by the AO should not be sustained, 4. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of material on record. Bare perusal of the facts shows that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. The grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed. Despite several notices being issued, the appellant has not made any compliance. The appeal is dismissed.”
2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred this second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following the grounds of appeal in the form No. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing adequate opportunity of 1 hearing. The Appellant prays that the EXPARTE order of CIT(A) passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing directed to be quashed and set aside.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in exparte dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the Assessing Officer for hearing on merits.
Page 3 of 8 Juneja Size and Coal Wash Pvt. & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the 3 learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of TCS of Rs. 31,83,838/- which is prayed to be deleted.
4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 03.12.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contented that the “Impugned order” is exparte. It was also submitted that date of service of the “Impugned order” is dated 06.01.2025 and if this date is to be recokned then there is No delay. The registry has not pointed any delay too. It was then submitted that the “Impugned TCS default order” and so also “Impugned Order” by the nature are exparte orders and are in the breaches of the Principles of natural Justice. The sheet –Anchor of the argument of the Ld. AR was that it was due to the Covid-19 the unfortunate incident has happened. The survey under the act took place in January 2020 i.e. 24.01.2020. The “Impugned TCS default order” is dated 29.06.2020 which was high Covid-19 period. It was submitted
Page 4 of 8 & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 that there are three issues1)TCS 2)interest and 3) fees. The Assessee is in the business of coal mining. In so far as, the impugned order is concerned it was submitted by the Ld. AR that it took the CIT(A) to fix hearing in the matter nearly 4 and ½ years. The hearings were fixed on 02.12.2024, 09.12.2024. On 13.12.2024 the “impugned order” was passed which was immediately after the second hearing. The learned AR finally prayed that the “impugned order” should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned AR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue submitted that the department has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) on basis as less time was given to the Assessee. In so far appeal No. ITA 208/Ind/2025 is concerned it was submitted that- facts circumstances are almost identical.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
Page 5 of 8 & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and contentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have minutely perused records of the case and have heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered view that both the learned AR and the learned DR are “Aidem” that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so as to enable him to pass fresh order on denovo basis. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the department.
4.4 In view of the premises drawn by us. We set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the the case back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) on denovo basis.
Order 5.1 In the premises drawn up by us the “Impugned order” is set aside and the case of the assessee is remanded back to the file of learned CIT(A) on the denovo basis.
Page 6 of 8 & 208/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 5.2 In the result appeal of the assassee is allowed for statistical purpose.
ITANo.208/Ind/2025 5.3 Since the facts and circumstances are almost identical and similar this appeal too was heard simultaneously and is being disposed off by this order and impugned order of the CIT(A) therein is too set aside & the matter is remanded to him on denovo basis. Mutatis mutandis.
5.4 Finally in the result- both the appeals are allowed for Statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notic board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rule,1963 on 30.12.2025.