M/S SUNRISE DISTRIBUTERS,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4367/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an order without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as being in default for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C and raised a demand. The CIT(A) confirmed this demand through an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an order without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 07.11.2017Pronounced: 08.11.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2016 by ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Noida has erred in law as well as on facts by treating the assessee in default under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by invoking section 194C(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I, Noida has erred in law as well as on facts by adjudicating on the issue which was not the subject matter of the appeal, without providing any opportunity to the assessee.

2 Sunrise Distributers 3. Any other ground of appeal

, which may be taken up during the course of appellate proceedings.

4. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, amend, raise or delete any or all grounds of appeal.”

3. Vide Ground No. 2, the main grievance of the assessee relates to the opportunity of being heard not provided by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO considered the assessee as assessee in default and raised the demand of Rs.1,31,611/- u/s 201(1) and Rs.47,955/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) r.w.s. 194C of the Act.

5.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and confirmed the action of the AO.

6.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity of being heard passed this order which is against the principles of natural justice.

7.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

3 Sunrise Distributers 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/11/2017)

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →