PANSULI HIGH SCHOOL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.WARD-4(2), TDS, BURDWAN

The assessee in the present case filed the TDS returns/statements for the Financial Year 2009-10 and 2010-11. From the perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer found that there was a short deduction of tax at source to the extent of Rs.1,630/- and short payment of tax deducted at source to the extent of Rs.10,000/- during the Financial Year 2009-10. He accordingly issued an intimation u/s 200A of the Act, showing the amount payable by the assessee for the Financial Year 2009-10 i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 to the tune of Rs.18,120/- including interest of Rs.6,490/-. He also noticed a similar default on the part of the assessee in short payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) to the extent of Rs.2,82,920/- including interest of Rs.53,380/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and accordingly issued intimation u/s 200A of the Act, for the same.

We have heard the arguments o We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant f both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 38 days material available on record. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 38 days material available on record. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 38 days on the part of the assessee in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affid the assessee has filed an affidavit of Advocate Sri Siddhartha Pratim Datta, the Sri Siddhartha Pratim Datta, the authorised representative of the assessee stating that he was not well at the relevant authorised representative of the assessee stating that he was not well at the relevant authorised representative of the assessee stating that he was not well at the relevant time due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. time due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. time due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. Keeping in view the same, we are sati Keeping in view the same, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause sfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 38 days on the part of the assessee on the part of the assessee in filing of these appeals before the in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D/R, has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay Tribunal. Even the ld. D/R, has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay Tribunal. Even the ld. D/R, has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay is accordingly condoned and these app is accordingly condoned and these appeals of the assessee are being disposed off on eals of the assessee are being disposed off on merit. 3.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no default on the The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no default on the The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no default on the part of the assessee in short deduction of TDS or short payment of TDS, as alleged by part of the assessee in short deduction of TDS or short payment of TDS, as alleged by part of the assessee in short deduction of TDS or short payment of TDS, as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the in the Assessing Officer in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act, for both the timations issued u/s 200A of the Act, for both the Assessment Years under consideration. He has contended that no opportunity, Assessment Years under consideration. He has contended that no opportunity, Assessment Years under consideration. He has contended that no opportunity, however, was given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to produce the relevant however, was given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to produce the relevant however, was given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to produce the relevant challans, in order to support and substantiat in order to support and substantiate its case and even proper and sufficient e its case and even proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard was not given by the ld. CIT(A) also during the course of opportunity of being heard was not given by the ld. CIT(A) also during the course of opportunity of being heard was not given by the ld. CIT(A) also during the course of appellate proceedings before dismissing the appeals of the assessee for non appellate proceedings before dismissing the appeals of the assessee for non appellate proceedings before dismissing the appeals of the assessee for non- prosecution vide his impugned orders passed prosecution vide his impugned orders passed ex-parte. He has urged that these He has urged that these matters may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee matters may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee matters may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee an opportunity to show that there is no case of any short deduction of TDS by the an opportunity to show that there is no case of any short deduction of TDS by the an opportunity to show that there is no case of any short deduction of TDS by the assessee as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view a assessee as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view all the facts and ll the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept th circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept this contention of the ld. Counsel of the ld. Counsel 3 No. 2068 & 2069/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Pansuli High School for the assessee. Even the ld. D/R has not raised any objection in this regard and for the assessee. Even the ld. D/R has not raised any objection in this regard and for the assessee. Even the ld. D/R has not raised any objection in this regard and submitted that these matters can go back to the Assessing Officer fo submitted that these matters can go back to the Assessing Officer fo submitted that these matters can go back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification. The impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) passed verification. The impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) passed ex ex-parte for both the Assessment Years under consideration are accordingly set aside and the matters the Assessment Years under consideration are accordingly set aside and the matters the Assessment Years under consideration are accordingly set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh a to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh a to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the relevant an opportunity to produce the relevant challans, in order to show , in order to show that there was no short payment of TDS, in both the Assessment Years that there was no short payment of TDS, in both the Assessment Years that there was no short payment of TDS, in both the Assessment Years under consideration.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed f In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed f In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.