NARESH NATH MOOKERJEE SHIPPING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO(TDS), WARD - 58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee company filed TDS returns, and the AO found defaults, treating the assessee as in default and levying interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA
Before: SH. P.M.JAGTAP & SH. S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-24, Kolkata dated 26.05.2017 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed all the three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee in the present case is a company which filed the TDS return/statement for the different quarters of the year under consideration. The analysis of the said return/statement made by the AO revealed certain defaults committed by the assessee in the year under consideration as well as in 3rd & 4th quarters of the said year. Consequently the AO treated the assessee as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and also levied interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. Accordingly orders u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were passed by the AO raising demands of Rs.27,565/-, Rs.11,271/- & Rs.1,19,810/-for the 3rd quarter, 4th quarter and the year under consideration respectively. to 1717/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2007-08]
Against the orders passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, appeals were preferred by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice issued by him fixing the said appeals for hearing from time to time, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee vide his common appellate order dated 26.05.2017 passed ex-parte observing that in the absence of any explanation or submission offered by the assessee in support of the grounds raised in the said appeals, there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the orders passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that even though there was no personal appearance on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearings fixed before Ld.CIT(A), the written submission was filed by the assessee in support of the grounds raised in its appeals. He has submitted that Ld.CIT(A) however over-looked the said written submission filed by the assessee and proceeded to dismiss the appeals of the assessee without going into the merits of the issues raised therein for want of any explanation or submission. He has contended that impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A) thus is liable to be set aside and the matters may be sent back to him for disposing of the appeals on merit after taking into consideration the written submissions filed by the assessee. Ld. DR has also not raised any objection for sending the matters back to Ld.CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matters back to him for disposing of the appeals of the assessee afresh on merit after taking into consideration the written submissions filed by the assessee. to 1717/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2007-08]
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.08.2018.
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