GUPTA & SONS,CHENNAI vs. ITO- TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in steel scrap, was subjected to a TDS survey. It was found that the assessee had not collected TCS on the sale of scrap amounting to Rs. 25,03,26,327/-. The AO levied interest under section 201(1A) for non-collection of TCS. The assessee's appeal before the FAA was dismissed ex-parte for non-response to notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee missed the FAA notices due to an error in filing Form 35 (TAN instead of PAN). The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the FAA.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the FAA was justified and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
201(1A), 133A(2A), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Mumbai (in short "FAA") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 25.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of trading in steel scrap. A TDS survey u/s.133A(2A) was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and during the course of survey, it is noticed that the assessee has not collected TCS on sale of scrap amounting to
ITA No.3368/Chny/2025 Gupta & Sons :- 2 -:
Rs.25,03,26,327/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. In response to the notice the assessee submitted that an amount of Rs.3,66,27,292 is sale of pipes and for the balance amount the assessee submitted that the payees have included the payments in their return of income and have paid the tax due thereon. The assessee sought time to furnish the details and since no further details were received from the assessee the AO levied interest u/s.201(1A) to the tune of Rs.20,30,140/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the FAA. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the FAA dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the FAA.
We heard the parties and perused the material on record. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has mentioned TAN instead of PAN in Form 35 and hence did not get the notices issued by the FAA. The ld AR further submitted that only when the recovery notice was received on 14.11.2025, the assessee came to know of the order of the FAA. The ld AR in this regard drew our attention to the relevant documents in the paper book. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case properly before the FAA in the interest of justice and fair-play. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the FAA for consideration of the impugned issue on merits by calling for required details to decide the case in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary details and co- operate with appellate proceeding without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.3368/Chny/2025 Gupta & Sons :- 3 -:
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 28th January, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
