STATE BANK OF INDIA NEW CANTT ROAD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5782/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 November 20175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no person should be condemned unheard and that the assessee should be provided with a due opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank was treated as in default for not deducting tax on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) availed by its employees, leading to a tax liability. The assessee contended that it was not provided with a proper opportunity of hearing by the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. Whether the tax liability for non-deduction of tax on LTC was correctly determined without affording natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G”, DELHI

Before: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari-Sr
Hearing: 07/11/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member)

1.

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/07/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Dehradun, on the grounds as raised in the grounds of appeal. Broadly, the assessee has contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer.

2.

During hearing, Shri Vivek Gupta, ld. Counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to the assessment order as well as the impugned order with respect to not providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, it was requested that the matter may be sent back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The ld. DR, Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, defended the impugned order by contending that the opportunity was provided to the assessee which was not availed by assessee itself. It make effective representation, on the appointed date before the concerned authorities.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee bank is engaged in providing various services of banking/financial services to the public at large. As per the assessee, the tax deducted at source was duly deposited in the state ex-chequer within the prescribed time. However, the Ld. AO required the assessee bank to furnish the details of employees, who availed leave travel concession for the FY 2011-12, which were also provided. However, the Ld. AO initiated proceedings u/s 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) and treated the assessee in default, creating the tax liability of Rs.10,51,045/- (including interest of Rs.1,12,612/-) at the rate of 30% stating that the case of the assessee was barred by time on 31/03/2014.

2.2. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the stand taken in the assessment order was affirmed against which observations made in the assessment order/impugned order are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that (as is evident from assessment order itself) the assessee provided the part details and on 24/03/2014, the assessee could not appear, therefore, the assessment was framed.

Likewise, the ld. First Appellate Authority observed that due opportunity was provided to the assessee, which was not availed in the right spirit for the reason based known to the assessee. Without going into much deliberation, we are of the view that no person should be condemned unheard. Even otherwise, mandate of Article-265 of the Constitution of India is only due taxes has to be levied/collected, Thus, considering the totality of facts, we deem it appropriate to send this file to the file of the Ld. AO to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit.

Needless to mention here that the assessee be provided due opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose only. statistical purpose only.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the

More judgments on Section 201

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →