BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee, Board of Professional Entrance Examinations, appealed against ex-parte orders from the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A) for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. A demand of ₹24,27,392 relating to TDS was confirmed without considering the assessee's argument that it is a government body which had correctly deducted and deposited TDS. The appeals were filed with a significant delay attributed to the previous tax consultants.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the Addl. CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Addl. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee for verification of TDS deduction details.
Key Issues
Violation of principles of natural justice by the first appellate authority; Condonation of delay in filing appeals; Adjudication of disputed TDS demand against a government institution.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Dr Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:
These Captioned appeals are filed by the assessees against the
separate orders dated 22/02/2024 and 15/10/2024 passed by the Additional/Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Addl CIT (A)’,]
2 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14
in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14, challenging therein the
impugned orders passed ex parte qua the assesse in violation of principles of
natural justice.
Since there was common issue involved in both these appeals related to
violation of natural justice and hence these two appeal were heard together and
adjudicated by this consolidated order for brevity.
After considering the bonafide reasons explained by the Ld. Counsel with
the support of Notorised affidavit and no objection of the depart to the request of
the assessee, we condone the delay of 324 days and 80 days in filing the appeals
by the assessee in ITA Nos. in the case of in I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2025 and I.T.A. No.
237 & 238/Asr/2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14
respectively. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has
never been granted a fair opportunity to present its case with complete facts and
evidence as the impugned orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act by the
learned additional CIT was in consequent to non-compliance and non-
communication due failure on the part of the previous tax consultants which had
resulted in delayed filing of these appeals. The Ld. AR contended that the Ld.
3 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14
additional CIT appeal has confirmed the demand of rupees 24,27,392 raised by
the AO without considering the facts that assesseee is a government body
engaged in the conduct of professional examination in union territory of Jammu
and Kashmir, and it has rightly deducted TDS wherever applicable, and duly
deposited to the government account.
The AR argued that the appellant assessee being a government institution
was never really required to deduct the TDS on payments made on account of
setting/printing of question papers, answer sheets and evaluation of
examinations. Therefore, the demand of ₹24,27,392/- raised by the income tax
department has been wrongfully created as TDS was rightly deducted as well as
deposited by the detector. He requested to restore the matter to the file of the
Ld. Addl. CIT (A) for afresh adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity to
the assesee who undertakes to cooperate before the 1st appellate authority. The
Ld. DR has no objection in restoring the matter to the Addl. CIT (A) for afresh
adjudication in view of the assessee being a state govt institution.
From the record, it is noted the Ld. Addl. CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the
demand ex-parte qua the assessee by merely observing that the assessee did not
comply with the notices of hearing of the appeals issued under section 250 of the
4 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14
Income Tax Act common 1961, during the proceedings. Under the circumstances,
he was compelled to believe that appellant has nothing to submit against the
addition made by the assessing officer and same was confirmed. In our view, the
act of the Addl CIT has been in violation of principles of Natural Justice. In fact, he
ought to have appreciated the facts of the case and granted opportunity to the
assessee in view of principles of natural justice before giving his blanket adverse
casual observation.
In the light of the peculiar facts that this is being a survey case and exparte
order passed by the additional CIT (A) in summary manner, we consider it deem
fit that the matter may be remanded back to the Addl. CIT (A) adjudicate the
matter de novo after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the
asseseee who undertakes to cooperate in furnishing the requisite details for
verification of TDS deduction as required by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back
to the file of the Ld. Addl. CIT to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with
law.
The issue related to violation of principles of natural justice in
238/Asr/2025 is similar to the issue of Natural Justice adjudicated by us in ITA No.
5 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14
237/Asr/2025. Therefore, our observation and finding given in ITA No. 237/Asr/2025 shall apply in ITA No. 238/Asr/2025 in mutatis mutandis, ordered
accordingly.
In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 26.09.2025 in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) (DR. M. L. MEENA) Judicial Member Accountant Member
DOC*
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order
