M.S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIIER, TDS WARD-1, KALABURGI

At the outset, it has been submitted that there is a delay in filing present appeal by 14 days for which assessee filed condonation application. - 1878(B)/2018 2 3. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, sponsored by Government of Karnataka, for purposes of carrying certain activities for advancement of general public utility within the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. He submitted that assessee could not take immediate steps to file appeal before this Tribunal as the Governing Council of Society/its Chairman could not accord permission. Entire government machinery was busy with state elections in Karnataka, as a result of which Society’s Chairman had to take charge as District Election Officer. Ld.AR thus submitted that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal by 14 days.

Ld. DR though vehemently opposed application for condonation of delay could not controvert genuinely cause for delay caused in filing the present appeals.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Considering bonafide reason as the authorised person to file appeal before this Tribunal was held up with election duty within the State, we are inclined to condone the delay of 14 days. 5.1 Main grievance raised by assessee in present appeal is regarding determining demand under section 201(1) and 201 (1A) without giving proper opportunity to assessee. He submitted that there has been no violation of any of the TDS provisions on behalf of assessee, and therefore, demand raised by authorities below under section 201(1) and 201(1A) are bad in law. - 1878(B)/2018 3 6. Ld.AR submitted that before assessing officer proper opportunity was not granted to assesse and it was an ex parte order passed by Ld. AO. Another grievance raised by Ld.AR is that Ld.CIT (A) in para 7.1 called for remand report from Ld.AO. It is submitted that assessee was not provided with copy of remand report. Ld.AR thus alleged that assessee was not provided with proper opportunity to represent itself before authorities below.

Ld.DR submitted that in para 7.2 of the impugned order Ld. CIT(A) specifically notes that during remand proceedings assessee was granted sufficient opportunities, but no details were furnished.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 8.1 It is observed that, assessee is an authority established under State of Karnataka. Before us various details in respect of payments made to its staff members external agents etc., have been placed in paper book, which has not been subjected to scrutiny before Ld. AO. Further Ld.CIT (A) upon receipt of remand report did not provide copy to assessee. Assessee has thus prayed that it should be given one more opportunity to represent its case before Ld.CIT (A). 8.2 Considering submissions filed and fact that assessee is an authority established under State of Karnataka, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to assessee to file all requisite details before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) shall send documents to Ld.AO for remand report. Ld.AO shall also grant sufficient opportunity to assessee of being heard.