SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER TDS , JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1043/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and could not present their defense. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the levy of TCS and interest was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. The assessee sought one more chance to present documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 206C(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1043/JPR/2024

Hearing: 20/11/2024Pronounced: 03/01/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-06-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal.

1. That the learned Commissioner income tax appeals has erred in maintaining the levy of TCS of Rs. 246886/- on turnover of Rs. 24688622/-. The levy of TCS is wrong and illegal because we dealing iron material and not scrap therefore TCS is not applicable. The CIT(A) has not considered our reply submitted on 26.06.2024.

Satish Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- “3. Decision The appellant has raised 2 grounds of appeal. The ground no. 1 is that the learned Income Tax Officer is wrong & illegal in lying TCS of Rs. 2,46,886/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. The grounds no.2 is that the learned Income Tax Officer is wrong & Illegal in charging interest of Rs. 1,02,160/- u/s 206C(7) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1. In appellate proceedings before the NFAC (Appeals), the assessee was provided with multiple hearing opportunities to submit the documentary evidences in support of grounds of Appeal on following dates: S. No. Haring order date Date of compliance Remarks 1. 07.06.2021 22.06.2021 No response received 2. 08.09.2021 23.09.2021 No response received 3. 24.01.2022 08.02.2022 No response received 4. 20.06.2024 26.06.2024 No response received 3.2 In view of the above, it is clear that multiple hearing opportunities have been provided to the appellant. However, appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of grounds of appeal

. The above details show that the appellant is not serious to pursue his appeal and has nothing to submit. So, I am constrained to uphold the addition made by the assessing officer for want of explanation and documentary evidences as well as on merit too. In the circumstances, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.”

4. Result: In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 206C(7)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 206C(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →