MUTHOOT SYNDICATE NIDHI LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) passed a cryptic order dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unreasoned and lacking due consideration of the submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Nidhi company, accepted fixed deposits and granted loans. Following a survey, the assessee was found to have failed to deduct TDS on interest paid, amounting to Rs. 2,19,99,137, and was treated as an 'assessee in default'. The assessee contended there was no obligation to deduct TDS on payments below Rs. 5,000.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a cryptic and unreasoned order without considering the submissions and principles of natural justice. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 30.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Nidhi company accepting fixed deposits from the general public and grants loans as per the interest rates fixed by the firm. The ITO/TDS Thiruvananthapuram had conducted survey operations in the business premises of the appellant and found that the appellant had Muthoot Syndicate Nidhi Ltd. failed to deduct TDS on the interest paid of Rs.2,19,99,137/-. Accordingly, the appellant was treated as an ‘assessee in default’ and demanded TDS of Rs. 43,99,828/- for FY 2015-16.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that there was no obligation on the part of the appellant company to deduct tax on interest paid to a person to whom aggregate payment made in a year did not exceed Rs. 5,000/- as it is below the threshold limit. However, the CIT(A), without considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant company dismissed the appeal by passing cryptic order.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. at the outset we find that the CIT(A) had passed cryptic order without taking into consideration the submissions made before him and confirmed the order passed by the TDS Officer. In our considered opinion the order passed by the CIT(A) does not meet the requirement of a reasoned order, was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the issues in the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
More judgments on Section 194A
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Welspun Aunta Simaria Project Private… vs DCIT, Circle-78(1), DelhiITA 6559/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1713/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1712/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026