ADVANCE STEEL TUBES LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7656/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the prescribed procedure for appellate orders and may have dismissed the appeals prematurely. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for default, noting non-compliance and irregularities found during a survey regarding TDS obligations.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeals for default without following the statutory procedure and whether the assessee was given a sufficient opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Hearing: 20.07.2018Pronounced: 20.07.2018

ORDER Per Bench: We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record.

2.

With the consent of both the parties, the appeals are being decided along with the stay applications.

3.

The assessee has filed four appeals against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 27.10.2017 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 against the orders passed u/s. 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. to 7659/Del/17 & SA Nos. 512 to 515/Del/18 2

4.

The ld. CIT(A) noted certain dates of hearing in the appellate order, on which there was no response from the side of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, observed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals. The ld. CIT(A) noted that survey was conducted at the premises of the assessee, wherein irregularities and non-compliance of law regarding obligation to deduct tax were found and the assessee filed no explanation for the same. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed all the appeals of the assessee.

5.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that lastly, the assessee moved for adjournment, which was not granted by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, there is no non- compliance made by the assessee. He has also submitted that all the challans and bills are available with the assessee, which he is willing to produce on record. He has submitted that there is no violation of any provision of law. Therefore, the demand is not justified. According to section 250(6) of the IT Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to give points for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) instead of following the provisions of law, has dismissed the appeals for default on the part of assessee. Perhaps, there may not be any default on the part of the assessee, as nothing is attributed against the assessee in the impugned orders.

6.

In this view of the matter, the order of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. We accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and restore all the appeals of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida with the to 7659/Del/17 & SA Nos. 512 to 515/Del/18 3 direction to decide all the appeals on merits strictly as per law by giving points for determination and reasons for decision after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer.

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →