M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. ACIT TDS CIRCLE, DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 April 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its case before the CIT(A) and Form Nos. 27C were not produced before the AO. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16. The assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) and had not produced Form Nos. 27C before the AO. The AO had passed an ex-parte order for non-deduction of TCS.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case and submit Form Nos. 27C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 206C(6A),Section 206C(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM

Hearing: 03/04/2025Pronounced: 03/04/2025

O R D E R Per Bench : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 25/01/2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060142968(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060143462(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060143195(1) for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, respectively.

2.

Shri M.K.Choudhary and Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates appeared on behalf of the assessee in all the three cases and Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

1.

3. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and the AO has passed the order u/s.206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Act holding that the assessee had not deducted TCS as required. It was the submission that the AO has held that the assessee has not been able to provide Form Nos.27C and the same could not be verified. It was the prayer that the issues involved in all these appeals may be restored to the file of AO for verification of Form Nos.27C as also to examine as to whether the list of persons whom the AO has annexed to his order, have offered their income to tax in their respective returns of income.

4.

In reply, ld. CIT-DR submitted that no direction should be given to the AO and that the AO's decision should be unfettered.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has not represented its case before the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the AO also clearly shows that Form Nos.27C have not been produced by the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in all the appeals are restored to the file of AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case and to produce the required Form Nos.27C. No fetter has been put on the AO and a liberty is granted to the AO to examine all such evidences as are required to be provided by the assessee. It may also be mentioned here that as the AO himself has extracted the list of persons in respect of whom the TCS was required to be deducted and it is not within the control of the assessee to produce any evidence as to whether such persons have offered the said amount as income in their

More judgments on Section 206C(6A)

All 121 judgments and leading authorities on Section 206C(6A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →