Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH
These sixteen appeals have been filed by the assessee directed against different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
ITA Nos.2727-2742 /2019 :- 2 -:
(Appeals)-3, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 30.08.2019 for assessment years 2017-18 (24Q-Q1), 2017-18 (24Q- Q2), 2017- 18 (24Q-Q3), 2017-18 (24Q- Q 4), 2017-18 (26Q-Q1), 2017-18 (26Q- Q2), 2017-18 (26Q- Q3), 2017-18 (26Q- Q4), 2018-19 (24Q- Q1), 2018-19 (24Q- Q2), 2018-19 (24Q- Q3), 2018-19 (24Q- Q4), 2018-19 (26Q- Q1), 2018-19 (26Q-Q2), 2018-19 (26Q-Q3), & 2018-19 (26Q- Q4).
Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order.
For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant in ITA 3. No.2727/Chny/2019 for assessment year 2017-2018 (24Q-Q1), are stated herein. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 4.
‘’1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Chennai dated 30.08.2019 in l.T.A.No.37/2018-19 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in passing the impugned order exparte in violating grossly the principles of natural justice and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice should be reckoned as nullity in law.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing while the Appellant had responded to the notices issued in fixing the hearing in the above matter, the impugned order passed in sustaining the intimation/order passed by the Assessing Officer mechanically was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
ITA Nos.2727-2742 /2019 :- 3 -:
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event there were reasonable circumstances for the presumed violation on the part of the Appellant while negating the mechanical assumption of jurisdiction u/s 200A of the Act for passing consequential order in imposing levies as contemplated therein including the interest u/s 234E of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the entire computation forming part of the order/intimation passed by the Assessing Officer on various facets was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
The CIT (Appeals) erred in overlooking the objections of the Appellant on the quantification of short deduction/payment of TDS by the Assessing Officer without referring to the relevant materials and ought to have appreciated that the sustenance of such differential components as recoverable from the Appellant in the computation forming part of the order/intimation passed by the Assessing Officer without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of interest for the disputed short deduction/payment of TDS by the Assessing Officer without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act as part of the computation of the intimation/order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order/intimation being the impugned order before him was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law and further ought to have appreciated that even though the Appellant had remitted/deposited the TDS through the office of the Chartered Accountants, the fraud! cheating/forgery committed leading to the initiation of the criminal proceedings would fortify the reasonable cause for considering the deletion of the consequential levies which formed part of the computation of the impugned order/intimation. 9. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing’’.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 5. record. We find from the perusal of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) posted the case for hearing four times. On first two occasions,
ITA Nos.2727-2742 /2019 :- 4 -: the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared and sought time. On 3rd occasion the case was posted for hearing on 25th July,2019, it appears that none appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence, the case was again posted for hearing on 19th August, 2019 for fourth time. On 19th August, 2019, there was no response from the assessee, in the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) had proceeded to dispose the appeal ex-parte. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is not clear to us, as to whether or not, 4th hearing notice were served to the assessee. Further, there is nothing on record to show that appellant is show caused, which in our considered opinion is against principles of natural justice. Therefore in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we remit the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in for assessment year 2017-18 (24Q-Q1) is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA Nos.2728 to 2742/Chny/2019:-
Since, the facts in the present appeals are identical to the facts in for the reasons mentioned therein, we partly allow the appeals for statistical purpose filed by the assessee on ITA Nos.2727-2742 /2019 :- 5 -:
the above lines indicated in appeal supra. Hence, the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in to 2742/CHNY/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 7th day of January, 2020, at Chennai.