M/S WAVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee was treated as being in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, leading to a demand. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action through an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing 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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 30.05.2016 by ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.
Common issue is involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
First we will deal with the appeal in 2012-13. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: & 4370/Del/2016 2 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. “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.
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.”
4. Vide Ground No. 2, the main grievance of the assessee relates to the opportunity of being heard not provided by the ld. CIT(A).
Facts of the case in brief are that the AO considered the assessee as assessee in default and raised the demand of Rs.45,930/- u/s 201(1) and Rs.15,280/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) r.w.s. 194C of the Act.
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. & 4370/Del/2016 3 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
In relevant to the assessment year 2013- 14, the facts are identical as were involved in 2012-13 which we have already adjudicated in ITA Nos. 4369 & 4370/Del/2016 4 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. the former part of this order , therefore, our findings given therein shall apply mutatis mutandis for the assessment year 2013-14.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/11/2017)
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026