SCHREIBER DYNAMIX DAIRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)(OSD) 1(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2441/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2018AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo decision. This was to ensure that the assessee is provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as none was given previously.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a demand raised under sections 201(1)/201(1A) for short deduction of tax. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Aditi Bhansali, A.R
For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Hearing: 28.06.2018Pronounced: 24.07.2018

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:

2 M/s. Schreiber Dynamix Diaries Ltd. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Order dated 28.03.2011 passed under section 201(1)! 201(1A) of the Act without providing an opportunity for being heard and hence, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Order should be held as illegal and bad-in-law and should be quashed accordingly. Consequently, the demand of Rs.39,33,034/- raised by passing order U/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act should be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate, following are the Grounds of Appeal

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the demand of Rs.38,14,190/- raised on account of processing e-TDS Returns (Form No.260 and 24Q) on systems for the quarter ended 30.03.2005, is bad in law, as the appellant has not been provided with the Annexure" forming part of the order giving the details of the defaults. Consequently, the demand of Rs.38.14.190/- raised U/s.201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act should be deleted.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have not confirmed the demand of Rs.1,18,844/- raised in the Order passed U/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act.

3. Without prejudice to the grounds of appeal no. 2 and 3 hereinabove and in the alternate, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant should not be deemed to be an assessee in default for the amount of tax within the meaning of Section 201(1) of the Act as the respective deductees to whom the appellant has made payments, have paid the income-tax on their total income. Consequently, the demand of Rs.30,97,810/- raised U/s.201(1) of the Act should be deleted.

4. It is humbly prayed that it should be held that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove and/or such other reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and as may meet the ends of justice, should be granted.

5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

3.

The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1 which is the main ground of appeal is against the confirmation of order dated 28.03.2011 passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act without providing any opportunity of being heard and

4.

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We observe from the record before us that the issue involved in the present appeal is qua the demand raised by the AO(TDS) on account of short deduction of tax. The main contention of the Ld. A.R. is that no opportunity was provided to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order was passed without hearing the assessee thereby causing miscarriage of justice and principle of natural justice and requested that the issue be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) so that order could be passed after hearing the assessee on merits.

5.

The Ld. D.R. agreed to the fair proposition of the Ld. A.R. that the issue be restored not to Ld. CIT(A) but to the AO so that all the relevant details could be verified and matter be decided accordingly.

6.

After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the issue is restored to the file of AO so that the same could be disposed off on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as no opportunity was provided to the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same in denovo after hearing the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2018.

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 →