M/S BALAJI ON BOARD COURIERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Disaster Relief Fund.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in courier business, failed to represent its case properly before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), despite multiple opportunities. The assessee sought another opportunity due to counsel preoccupation and a pending writ petition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer despite previous failures, and the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) regarding TDS on freight payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai in ITA No.54/2016-17/A.Y.2013-14/CIT(A)-4, dated 20.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2 -: Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate, represented on behalf of the 2. Assessee and Mr. A. Sundararajan, Additional CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was a submission that the assessee is in the business of running a courier business. It was a submission that the assessee was unable to represent its case properly before the Assessing Officer. It was also a submission that even before the learned CIT(A), the assessee’s representation had latches and consequently the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee after granting number of opportunities to represent its case. It was a submission that the assessee’s Counsels were pre-occupied and had filed a writ petition on behalf of the assessee before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in respect of the issue of applicability of Section 40(a)(ia), in respect of the non-deduction of the TDS on the freight payment. It was a submission that the failure on the part of the assessee may be condoned and the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent his claims before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the prayer of the assessee. It was a submission that before the Assessing Officer, eight opportunity had been given and before the learned CIT(A), six opportunities had been given and there was 3 -: absolutely no co-operation from the assessee. It was a submission that if the assessee is to be given another opportunity, punitive costs may be levied upon the assessee to a minimum of Rs.10,000/-.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the assessment order, as also the order of the learned CIT(A), clearly shows that the assessee has not used the substantial opportunities provided by both the Authorities below. In any case, considering the fact that the learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee has given an explanation and also has admitted to the failure, and after taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the issues in this appeal are liable to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claims before the Assessing Officer. This is ,however, subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister Disaster Relief Fund within three months from the date of this order, and produce such receipt before the Assessing Officer. If the above said condition is not complied, then the order as passed by the learned CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
4 -: 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th January, 2020 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
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