M/S. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. M/S. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2424/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) could not be sustained in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee had filed an adjournment application, but the CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal before the requested adjournment date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order is void ab initio due to violation of principles of natural justice. Whether 'Bus Hiring charges' and 'AMC for maintenance of Computers with spares' were correctly classified for TDS purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 194I,Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. L. P. SAHU

Hearing: 16.11.2017
1.

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida, dated 29.02.2016 for assessment year 2011- 12 u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act on the following grounds .

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) -1 is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order is void ab-initio being order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Noida, without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1 Noida, erred in confirming the addition treating “Bus Hiring charges “at par with the “Rent Paid for Plant & Machinery" thus misconstrued the provision and charged TDS @ 2% u/s 1941 of the Act, as this is a “Contract of service” not “Lease “and thereby working out a short deduction of Rs. 6.168/- alongwith consequential interest of Rs. 2,509/- u/s 201(1 A) aggregating to Rs. 8,677/-.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1 Noida, erred in confirming the addition treating “AMC for maintenance of Computers with spares “at par with the “Professional services" thus misconstrued the provision and charged TDS @ 10% u/s 194J of the Act, as this is a “maintenance with spares ” not “Professional & Technical services “and thereby working out a short deduction of Rs. 1,84.225/- alongwith consequential interest of Rs. 66,321/- u/s 201(1 A) aggregating to Rs. 2,50,546/-.

2.

We have heard Ld. Representative of both the parties. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is void ab initio because it was passed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. He has referred to the page 1 of the paper book which is adjournment application dated 05.02.2016 filed before Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida, received on the same day having stamp of the office of Ld. CIT(A) in which he has prayed for adjournment after 10.03.2016. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after moving the application for adjournment, no notice have been served upon assessee and appeal has been decided on 29.02.2016 without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

In view of the above, it is clear that when assessee requested for adjournment after 10.03.2016, Ld. CIT(A) should not have decided the appeal of the assessee prior to it on 29.02.2016, or he should have served another notice upon assessee to show his intention for disposal of the appeal prior to the date sought by the assessee. It, therefore, appears Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thus violated principles of natural justice. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. 4. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the CIT(A)-I, Noida and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with directions to re-decide appeal of the assessee on merits by giving reason sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →